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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1766

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
S.A. Velusamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government & Another - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.1276 of 2002
Decided On : 13 July 2006

Appearing Advocates: For the Appellants:Srinath Sridevan, Advocate. For the Respondents:C. Thirumaran, Govt. Advocate.

All three modes of publication are mandatory and non-compliance will vitiate acquisition proceedings.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Sections 4(1) and 6 - Acquisition of land-Publication of notification - Whenever Government intends to acquire land for public purpose, notification to that effect shall be published in Official Gazette; Two Daily Newspapers circulating in the locality of which, one shall be in regional language; and (c) Public Notice of the substance of such Notification is to be given at convenient places in the said locality - All three modes of publication are mandatory and non-compliance will vitiate acquisition proceedings.

Judgment :-

(Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 05.02.2002, made in W.P. No.18843 of 1994.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.02.2002, made in W.P. No.18843 of 1994, the writ petitioners have preferred the above Appeal.

For convenience, we shall refer the parties as described before the learned single Judge.

2. According to the petitioners, the property comprised in S.No.10 9/1, No.13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to their father late Arunachala Gounder. After the demise of their father, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property by changing the patta in their name. They are the permanent residents of Coimbatore. Whileso, they came to know during the second week of October, 1994, from the neighbouring land owners about acquisition of their land by the respondents for implementation of a Housing Scheme.

3. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, after taking us through the relevant materials and the impugned order of the learned Judge, has raised the following contentions. Inasmuch there has been no service of notice relating to Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. He also contended that, in the absence of personal notice to the petitioners, the authorities must have correctly mentioned their names and address in the Gazette Notification. But, the Gazette Notification refers different names instead of correctly mentioning the names of the petitioners. He further contended that, inasmuch as the publication of Notification under Section 4(1) in all three modes, viz., Gazette, Paper and public notice, is mandatory, the publication in the Newspapers viz., "Namathu MGR" and "Pirpagal", which have no circulation in the area where the land situates, cannot constitute a valid publication as provided in the Act.

4. On the other hand, Mr.C.Thirumaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that there is no procedural flaw or violation in the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the land in S. No.109/1, No.13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, originally belonged to their father late Arunachala Gounder and that, after his death, all the petitioners, being sons, have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also stated that they secured patta in their names. In other words, according to them, even in the revenue records, their name finds place, in such circumstances, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents ought to have issued notice to them under Section 4 (1) of the Act to put forth their objection in the enquiry under Section 5-A. In the absence of counter affidavit, highlighting the stand of the respondents, and relevant records, this Court has no other option except to accept the specific claim of the petitioners and hold that they had no opportunity to put forth their objection in the enquiry under Section 5-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that, apart from the above infirmity, names of the petitioners have not been correctly mentioned in the Gazette Notification. It is pointed out that all the three names have not been correctly described. There is no explanation at all why the names of the petitioners have not been correctly stated in the Gazette Notification.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, though it is the case of the respondents that the substance of the 4(1) Notification was published in two Newspapers, viz., "Namathu MGR" and "Pirpagal", those Newspapers have no circulation in the area concerned, hence, it can









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
whatsapp-icon Back to top