Non-compliance of mandatory provisions vitiated the acquisition proceedings.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The lands of the appellant were the subject matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Certain dates and factual details have got to be set down. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was dated 8.5.1975. It was published in the Gazette on 11.6.1975. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7.6.1978. According to the appellant, it was in the dark with reference to the details of the acquisition proceedings until a notice regarding award enquiry on 30.3.1983 was received by it. The appellant filed W.P. No. 2816 of 1983 challenging the acquisition proceedings from the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge, who heard the Writ petition, took note of the infirmity with reference to the conduct of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in that the remarks obtained from the requisitioning body, namely, the Housing Board were not at all forwarded to the appellant, and in this view the learned single Judge deemed fit to quash the acquisition proceedings, leaving the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in tact. The learned single Judge did not accept the contention of the respondents that the appellant must be denied reliefs on the ground of laches. The learned single Judge observed that the respondents should they so desire could continue the acquisition proceedings from the stage of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge. It must be noted here that the Writ Appeal No. 1708 of 1987 filed by the respondents as against the above decision of the learned single Judge has been dismissed by a Bench of this Court.

2. Mr. A. Sivaji, learned Counsel for the appellant, covets the quashing of the very notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and for this purpose, he advances the point that as enjoined by Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 1 of the Tamil Nadu Rules under the Act, there was no publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. A point to the above effect has been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. But, this point has not been adjudicated upon by the learned single Judge. That the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 1 of the Tamil Nadu Rules under the Act with regard to publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, are mandatory in nature and non-compliance with them will vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings, is a proposition well settled, which cannot permit any disputation. The respondents have not cared to file any counter affidavit rebutting the above contention of the appellant, based on violation of the mandatory provisions of law, either during the pendency of the writ petition or during the pendency of this writ appeal. Mr. K. Ravi Rajapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs), is also not in a position to put forth any voice of rebuttal supported by records in the course of his submissions, over this aspect. The result is, here we find a case where the mandate of law has been breached and the appellant must have the relief of quashing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as coveted through its learned Counsel.

3. However, Mr. K. Ravi Rajapandian, learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs), contends that the appellant is guilty of laches and even if it has made out a case on merits, this Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not show the appellant any indulgence, as now asked for. In support of this submission of his, learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) relies on a pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Housing Board v. Shanmugha Sundara Nadar. In answer Mr. A. Sivaji learned Counsel for the appellant, says that the facts of that case deal with by the Bench warranted the application of the principle of