Erstwhile owners of the land cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.

N. Kannadasan, J.

These appeals are filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.5748 and 5749 of 1989 dated 1.9.1998. The writ petitions were filed by the land owners challenging the Land Acquisition Proceedings wherein the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board was impleaded as third respondent. The writ petitioners have primarily contended that the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have not been complied with and as such the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is vitiated and the authorities have not chosen to notify the names of the land owners/petitioners in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the land acquisition Act viz., G.O.Ms.No.165 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 3.2.1986, even though the land owners have purchased the properties in question in the year 1984 and 1985 respectively.

2. Per contra, the Government has filed its counter-affidavit and contended that all the formalities required under the Act and Rules were followed and the proceedings are valid and sustainable in law.

3. The learned Judge by order dated 1.9.1998 has allowed the writ petition on the ground that Rule-3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Rules have been violated and as such, the enquiry under Section 5-A has been vitiated since they were not informed the comments of the acquiring body regarding the objections raised by them.

4. Against the said order of the learned Judge, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board viz., the requisition body has filed the above appeals.

5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/Housing Board that the order of the learned Judge is unsustainable in law for the following reasons. The name of the first respondent in W.A.No.491 of 1999/petitioner in W.P.No.5748 of 1989 does not find a place in the revenue records though he has purchased the land in question as early as on 25.10.1984 and as such, his name could not be furnished in the 4(1) notification dated 3.2.1986. Apart from the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette, it was published in two dailies which is widely circulated viz., "The Hindu" and "Thinathanthi" on 13.3.1986. The said notification was also published at convenient places in the locality on 15.3.1986, setting out the details of the lands and the acquisition proposals. A fresh enquiry was ordered under Section 5-A of the Act and he has appeared and submitted his objections only on 9.5.1986 and 20.2.1987 and his objections were overruled. Further the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) and the 5-A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act were complied with and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and an award enquiry was conducted and the possession of the land was taken over by the Government and later on the same was handed over to the requisition body namely, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/appellant herein as early as on 10.4.1989. As regards the first respondent in W.A.No.492 of 1999/petitioner in W.P.No.5749 of 1989, the name of the writ petitioner could not be included in the 4(1) notification dated 3.2.1986, since her name does not find a place in the revenue records, even though she had purchased the lands as early as on 6.12.1985. Apart from the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette, it was published in two dailies which is widely circulated viz., "The Hindu" and "Thinathanthi" on 13.3.1986. The said notification was also published at convenient places in the locality on 15.3.1986, setting out the details of the lands and the acquisition proposals. However, in the instant case, she has appeared for 5-A enquiry and has raised her objection only on 20.2.1987 which was considered and overruled. The mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were complied with and the notificatio