The mandatory nature of the provisions under Section 5-A of The Land Acquisition Act and the lack of requirement for serving notice if objections are not filed within the prescribed period.

1. The two petitioners herein, have joined together and filed a single writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to G.O. Ms. No.509 Housing & Urban Development Department dated 17.5.95 and G.O. Ms. No.290 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17.6.96 and quash the same as illegal. This Court granted interim stay on 13.8.1996.

2. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.D.Malarvizhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel advanced the following three contentions :-

"i) The publication of Section 4 (1) Notification in a daily, which has no circulation in the locality vitiates the acquisition ;

ii) No notice has been served on the petitioners for enquiry under Section 5-A of The Land Acquisition Act and this vitiates the acquisition ; and

iii) The outcome of Section 5-A enquiry has not been communicated to the petitioner and this vitiates the acquisition."

All the three contentions could be considered together.

4. The petitioners claim that they have jointly purchased the land comprised in survey No.241/1A of Vilanguruchi village, Coimbatore North Taluk from Nallammal on 17.2.1982. Though application for mutation of permanent land register and issue of patta was submitted subsequent to the purchase, the patta pass book was issued on 20.11.95 under Rule 5 of The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, in favour of the 2nd petitioner for the total extent of 1.53.5 Hectares. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed on 23.7.1996 challenging Section 4 (1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration.

5. A larger extent of 894.64.0 Hectares of land in Vilanguruchi village in Coimbatore North Taluk was notified for the public purpose of construction of houses for low income and middle income group in Ganapathi Neighbourhood Scheme. The land was divided into 72 blocks for convenience. The petitioners though claimed that they have purchased the land, their names did not find a place in the revenue records on 17.5.1995, the date of Section 4 (1) Notification. As the petitioners secured mutation only on 28.11.1995, their names has not been set out in Section 4 (1) Notification. Section 4 (1) Notification was published in the local daily "Pirpagal" on 17.6.95, "Dina Tanthi" on 18.6.95 in the name of original owner Nallammal, from whom the petitioners have purchased. Substance of Section 4 (1) Notification was published on 19.6.95 in the locality. All the persons interested, who have submitted their objections were served with a notice under Section 5-A for enquiry. Enquiry was conducted on 12.4.96. The petitioners did not send their objection and they were keeping quiet. The petitioners have come before this Court challenging Section 4 (1) Notification and the Declaration issued under Section 6 issued in G.O. Ms. No.290 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17.6.96. The petitioners name find a place in Section 6 Declaration.

6. The petitioners name did not find a place in the revenue records and, consequently their names could not have been set out in Section 4 (1) Notification even though the petitioners have purchased the land long prior to Section 4 (1) Notification. At one place the petitioners claim that they are permanent residents of Coimbatore and at another place they claim that they belong to Kerala and they reside in the State of Kerala. Substance of Section 4 (1) Notification was published in the locality and after wide publicity, an enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 22.1.96 in respect of those who filed the objections within time and further enquiry was conducted after communicating the remarks of the requisitioning body on 12.4.96. Admittedly, petitioners did not send their objections and, therefore, no notice has been served on the petitioners calling upon them to appear for an enquiry under Section 5-A. It is incidentally stated that notice was s