Court can interfere if there is violation of mandatory statutory provisions.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions on various grounds.

2. In both the writ petitions the total extent involved in the acquisition proceedings is 12 cents. The lands in Survey Nos. 17/13 and 17/16 an extent of 6 cents owned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3969 of 91 and another 6 cents owned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3976 of 91 were sought to be acquired by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for widening Nesapak-kam Road. In both the writ petitions even though the petitioners have raised several contentions, on the basis of various averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his submisions and raised the following points :-

i) There is no proper enquiry as per Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since Rule 3(b) of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules has not been followed.

ii) The entire acquisition proceedings initiated against both the petitioners are liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fide action of the respondents.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent has submitted that inasmuch as the petitioners did not submit their objections within 30 days as per Section 5-A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that there is violation of Rule 3(b). He also submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer, 2nd respondent has conducted fair enquiry after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners.

4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

5. Since the main question is whether there was a proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and whether Rule 3(b) of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" has been followed or not, the other factual aspects are unnecessary; hence there is no need for me to refer the same.

6. The substance of Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16-8-89. The same was published in Dhinamalar Newspaper on 17-8-89 and local publication was effected on 2-9-89. Section 5-A enquiry notice was served on the petitioner in person on 29-9-89 fixing the date of 5-A enquiry as 26-10-89. The Land Acquisition Officer received objection of the petitioner by registered post on 20-10-89. The petitioner's objection was communicated to the requestioning body on 23-10-89. According to the respondents, the petitioner attended enquiry and gave statement on 16-9-89. The petitioner's statement was communicated to Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for remarks on 18-11-89. The requisitioning body, namely, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority furnished their remarks on the objection on 5-12-89. The remarks of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority have furnished their remarks on the objections of the petitioner on 5-12-89. The same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 27-12-89. Petitioner submitted further objection on 29-1-90 and thereafter orders were passed on 12-6-90 and the petitioners received final order on 15-6-90. As stated earlier, we are concerned with Section 5-A enquiry. The subsequent action of the respondents are irrelevant; hence there is no need to refer the same.

7. It is the contention of Mr. N. Jothi, learned Counsel for the petitioners that even though the petitioners did not submit their objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification as per Section 5-A(1) of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioners have submitted their objections on 20-10-89 i.e., prior to the date fixed for 5-A enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have fully complied with the provisions adumbrated in Section 5-A of the Act as well as Rule 3(b) of the Rules. On the other hand, Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent, contended