The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the statutory procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, particularly in serving notice to the affected parties for an enquiry before passing the declaration under Section 6.

P.D.Dinakaran, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.1999 made in W.P.No.3334 of 1996.

2. For the purpose of convenience we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.

3.1. The petitioner purchased land of an extent of 32 cents located in Survey No.188/5, Thiruvanmayur Village under a registered document bearing No.191/1994, dated 31.7.1974 and also obtained a patta in her favour on 16.11.1974 and her name was entered in the revenue records. Concededly, it was only thereafter, namely on 19.2.1975, the said land was proposed to be acquired for a Housing Scheme by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity "the Act").

3.2. The said notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 19.2.1975 was challenged by the petitioner's father-in-law in W.P.No.9484 of 1983 and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 24.4.1991, quashed the said notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, finding that the said notification is vague.

3.3. Against the said order dated 24.4.1991, the State preferred an appeal before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13725 of 1992. While disposing a batch of S.L.Ps. along with the SLP (Civil) No.13725 of 1992, referred to above, on the point whether the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act can be interfered with on the question of vagueness, the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan, AIR 1996 SC 497 held that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act could not be interfered with on the ground of vagueness.

3.4. At the stage when award proceedings were initiated, the petitioner herself challenged the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in the present writ petition, viz., W.P.No.3334 of 1996, on the ground that even though the petitioner is the owner of the land from 31.7.1974 and patta was issued in her favour on 16.11.1974 by the competent revenue authorities, she had never been served with any notice either under Section 4(1) of the Act or under Section 5-A or under Section 6 of the Act.

3.5. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the respondents, while traversing the said allegation of the petitioner that she is the owner of the impugned land and no notice under Sections 4(1) or Section 5-A or Section 6 were served on the petitioner, stated as follows:

"The details of pattadhar in the Revenue records have been gathered in respect of all the fields covered in the notification, which is a time consuming process. The pattadhar once gathered could not be verified again and again for the purpose of confirming any change in the revenue register. The details of pattadhar are gathered and notified to identify the person having an interest over the property without regard to the actual title conferring absolute right on a person over the land which is being determined subsequently after the notification under Section 4(1) and Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, during Sections 5(A) and 9(3) and 10 enquiry. The title holder is entitled to file objection against acquisition, after the publication of 4(1) notification. In the instant case, the 4(1) notification has been published in the name of one Tmt.Ranganayakiammal, who was having patta at the time of enumeration of details regarding the patta holder for submitting proposals for 4(1) notification. The land was again notified under Section 6 on 23.3.1978. The writ petitioner has not filed any objections immediately after notifications." (emphasis supplied)

3.6. In spite of the above specific averments in the counter affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3334 of 1996, the learned single Judge, by order dated 10.12.1999 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that even though declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23.3.1978 and award was passed on 28.3.1983, the petitioner has chosen to file a writ petition only on 18.3.1996 and therefore, the petition suffers from laches. Hence, the writ appeal.

4. Mr.M.V