SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Mad) 70

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
Kuresh A.Kapadia & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.9075, 9180 to 9189 and 9967 to 9978 of 1997 W.P.No.9075 of 1997
Decided On : 29 January 2004

Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioners:R.Mukundan, Advocate. For The Respondents:M.S.Palanisamy, R1 to R3, D.Veerasekaran AGP Advocate.

Only on the last date of such publication and giving such public notice shall be the date of publication.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 11-A-Award-Period of passing of the Award-Period to be calculated from the date of publication-Impugned award passed after 726 days from the date of publication-Held genuine legal.

Judgment :-

In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the acquisition of their lands by the respondents, which are sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity "the Act") in G.O.Ms.No.433, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.5.1990, passed by the first respondent, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-II, Section 2, supplement on 23.5.1990 for a housing scheme called Sholinganallur Neighbourhood scheme Phase-III.

2. It is not in dispute that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 14.5.1990, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 23.5.1990, in two tamil dailies, viz., Dinakaran on 4.6.1990 and Murasoli on 5.6.1990. The local publication of the said notification was also made on 19.6.1990.

3. Pursuant to the said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, concededly, the petitioners were served with a notice for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, which was reportedly served on the petitioner in W.P.No.9967 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9968 of 1997 by registered post with acknowledgment due, the petitioner in W.P.No.9970 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9971 of 1997 on 28.7.1990, the petitioner in W.P.No.9973 of 1997 on 31.7.1990, the petitioner in W.P.No.9974 of 1997 by registered post with acknowledgment due, the petitioner in W.P.No.9975 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9976 of 1997 on 31.7.1990, the petitioner in W.P.No.9977 of 1997 on 4.2.1991. The service of the notices on the petitioners is not disputed at all. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held on 26.2.1991 in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.9973 of 1997, on 25.2.1991 in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.9974 of 1997, and some of the petitioners, viz., the petitioners in W.P.No.9975 of 1997 and W.P.Nos.9977 of 1997, who could not attend the enquiry sent their objections on 9.2.1991 and 7.2.1991 respectively.

4. After complying with the procedure contemplated under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules, communicating the remarks of the Acquisition Authority to the land owners and considering their objections in that regard, a declaration was passed under Section 6 of the Act on 7.6.1991 in G.O.Ms.No.948, Housing and Urban Development Department and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11.6.1991; in the locality on 12.6.1991 and in the local dailies, viz., Malaimalar on 13.6.1991 and Dinamalar on 14.6.1991.

5. At this stage, M/s.Vigneswara Nagar Association filed W.P.No.9194 of 1991 before this Court challenging the impugned land acquisition proceedings and also obtained an order of stay on 12.11.1991, but the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.9.1995. Thereafter, a notice for award enquiry as contemplated under Section 9(3) of the Act was served on the petitioners, and ultimately an award was passed on 23.4.1997. When a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioners on 12.5.1997, the petitioners have chosen to file these writ petitions in the year 1997, challenging the notifications made under Section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential declarations made under Section 6 of the Act.

6. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions are:

(i) the petitioners were not granted sufficient opportunity to put forth their cases in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act; and

(ii) the award was passed beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration and therefore, in view of Section 11A of the Act, the entire acquisition proceedings are lapsed.

7.1. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent/Board submits that all the petitioners have been served with the notice for the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and that some of them appeared for the enquiry and












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top