Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Thanga Krishnan and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Another - Respondents
W.P. NOS. 14433, 14456, 14489, 14490, 14554, 14828 & OF 2000 AND W.M.P. NOS. 20897, 20960, 21476, 21063, 20926 & 20958 OF 2000
Decided On : 11 December 2002
Land Acquisition - Validity of Section 4(1) Notification - G.O. Ms. No.429 Housing and Urban Development Dept. - Section 4(1), Section 6 - [Section 4(1), Section 6]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration under Section 6 of The Land Acquisition Act, claiming that the land acquisition proceedings for their properties were invalid. The petitioners contended that the substance of the Section 4(1) Notification was not published in the locality within the stipulated time and that the Section 5-A enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the substance of the Section 4(1) Notification was factually published in the locality on 8.2.99, and the Section 6 Declaration was issued validly within one year from the date of the last publication of the Section 4(1) Notification. The court also held that the Section 5-A enquiry was conducted validly and that Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had been followed. Additionally, the court found that the Section 4(1) Notification was validly published in two Tamil dailies with circulation in the locality.
Issues: Validity of Section 4(1) Notification publication, compliance with Section 5-A enquiry and Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, and the validity of Section 4(1) Notification publication in two Tamil dailies with circulation in the locality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the substance of the Section 4(1) Notification was published in the locality on 8.2.99, within the stipulated time, and that the Section 6 Declaration was issued validly within one year from the date of the last publication. The court also found that the Section 5-A enquiry was conducted validly and that Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had been followed. Additionally, the court held that the Section 4(1) Notification was validly published in two Tamil dailies with circulation in the locality.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
COMMON ORDER
1. In the above batch of writ petitions, the petitioners seek to quash G.O. Ms. No.429 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 13.11.1998 in issuing Section 4 (1) Notification and published in the Government Gazette No.48A Part II Section 2 (Supplement) dated 16.12.1998 and G.O. Ms. No.54 Housing and Urban Development Dept., dated 2.2.2000 in issuing a Declaration under Section 6 published in the Government Gazette dated 2.2.2000 in Part II Section 2 at pages 1 and 2 and the consequent notice issued under Section 9 (3) and 10 of The Land Acquisition Act, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners property as detailed in the respective writ petitions.
2. In all the above six writ petitions the Notification and Declaration challenged are one and the same and, therefore, these writ petitions were consolidated and taken up together. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. With the consent of either side, the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal. Though the respondents have not filed a counter, they have produced the files before the Court at the hearing. Excepting the difference in the extent of the land or survey number there is no other difference between one writ petition and another writ petition.
3. Heard Mr. J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Ms.D.Malarvizhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions.
4. The petitioner in each of the writ petition claim that they are the owners of various extent of lands comprised in survey No.63/1 Part, Koyambedu Village, Nungambakam Taluk. According to the petitioner, the very land was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings on the earlier occasion in G.O. Ms. No.974 Housing Department dated 11.5.1978 and Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O. Ms. Nos.1383 and 1384 Housing Department dated 28.9.1978. The said land was sought to be acquired among other adjacent vast extent of lands. Palani Naicker and the petitioner challenged the said acquisition by filing W.P. Nos. 4839, 4840, 4841 of 1982, etc., batch. The said writ petitions were dismissed on 18.10.1992.
5.Being aggrieved, the said Palani Naicker and the petitioner preferred W.A. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984. The Division Bench, while holding that Section 5A enquiry conducted is defective, allowed the writ appeals by judgment dated 14.9.90 and quashed the Section 6 Declaration. The Division Bench however observed that the enquiry under Section 5-A of The Land Acquisition Act not having been conducted in accordance with law, quashed the Declaration under Section 6 and made it clear that it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further from the stage of enquiry under Section 5-A in accordance with law. However, no steps have been taken in that respect.
6. After a lapse of seven years the first respondent State issued a Notification under Section 4 (1) in G.O. Ms. No.429 Housing and Urban Development Dept., dated 13.11.1998 notifying that the lands measuring 4 acres 89 cents in various survey fields of No.106 Koyambedu Village are needed for public purpose, to wit for the Koyambedu Wholesale complex developed to decongest the Madras George Town area and to provide better facilities for the public by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
7.According to the petitioner, Section 4 (1) Notification was published in the gazette on 16.12.1998, published in Tamil Dailies "Kathiravan" and "Madurai Mani" on 6.1.99. The petitioner points out that the said two dailies have no circulation in the area. The petitioner further adds that the substance of Section 4 (1) Notification is claimed to have been made on 2.3.99, while according to the petitioner no such publication of the substance in the locality was effected, either by beating of tom tom or by publication in the locality or
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
