Effect of discrepancy in the description of Land proposed to be acquired.

This writ appeal is against the .order of a single Judge, in W. P. No.3754 of 1978 dated 31-3-1981.

2. The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed before this Court are as follows : The writ petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.65 acres of land bearing S.No.339/1 in Tirupathur Town, Ramanathapuram district. The said land was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette for acquisition for the provision of house sites to Harijans of 11th Ward of Tirupathur Town under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the enquiry under S.5-A, the petitioner objected to the acquisition of the land on the ground that the State Bank of India, Tirupathur, Branch and himself had entered into a contract as early as in September 1976 and that consequently the Bank advanced Rs.90,000 to the petitioner for the construction of the building as per the plan furnished by the Bank. The Land Acquisition Officer inspected the land proposed to be acquired and found that after the publication of the draft Notification under S.4(1) of the Act, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the petitioner laid foundation for the office building of the Bank on the northern portion of the land in S.No.339/1. The Land Acquisition Officer proposed therefore to acquire 0.65 acre out of 1.10 acres in S. No. 339/1 on the southern side. Accordingly, a draft declaration was published under S.6 of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dt.3-8-1978, stating that 0.65 acres out of the land in S. No.339/1 was needed for the public purpose, viz. provision for house sites to the Harijans of Thirupathur Town. Subsequently, notices under Ss.9(3) and 10 of the Act were published and served in the manner prescribed under the rules. During the award enquiry, the petitioner reported to the officer concerned that he had filed a writ petition in this Court praying to quash the acquisition proceedings, and, therefore, requested him to adjourn the enquiry. In fact petitioner prayed the High Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, restraining the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, Devakottai Land Acquisition Officer from proceeding further in the matter in pursuance of the notices issued under Ss.9(3) and 10 of the Act.

3. Before the learned Judge, the following two points were urged by the petitioner.

(1) The Land Acquisition Officer was not certain as to where exactly the extent of 65 cents has got to be measured and carved out of the land bearing S. No.339/1 having a total extent of 1.10 acres.

(2) There was a discrepancy in the description of the land proposed to be acquired between S.4(1) notification and S.6 declaration. The learned Judge found both the grounds of attack not acceptable, and therefore, dismissed the writ petition by order dt. 31-3-1981. It is against that order, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. In this appeal, the same two points were urged before us.

It is seen that the land is described in S.6 declaration as -

"Ramanathapuram district, Thirupathur Taluk No. 57 Tirupathur village Ryotwari wet S. No. 339-1-B belonging to Muthalif, son of Ayyathurai Ambalam, Thirupathur town, bounded on the north by S. No.339-1-A. east by S.No. 339-2. south by S.No. 339-3 and west by S.No. 338-0.65 acre." *

This would suggest that the land is rectangular in shape. But the sketch prepared by the Special Surveyor, Mr. Periakarupah on 9-3-1981, which has been placed before us by the learned Government Pleader shows that the land to be acquired is in 'L' shape. In the declaration under S.6, it is stated that a plan of the lands is kept in the office of the Special Tahsildar (Harijan Welfare) Devakottai for inspection at any time during office hours. The plan now presented is said to be the same as the plan which was kept in the office of the Special Tahsildar at the time of the declaration. If it is so the verbal description of the land in the declaration under S.6 is certainly defective.

T