Acquisition proceedings vitiated.

Kanakaraj, J.

1. By a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', an extent of about 539.98 acres in Nolambur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District were sought to be acquired for the development of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. The notification was issued in G.O.Rt. No. 307, Housing Department, dated 11.12.1975 and published in the Gazette dated 31.12.1975. The deceased grandmother of the petitioner in W.P. No. 9783 of 1982 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 9784 of 1982 owned certain extents of land notified for acquisition. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved in G.O.Ms. No. 1784, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 30.121978 and published in the Gazette dated 30.12.1978. It is at this stage, the above writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raises the following points: (1) The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the village only on 22.2.1976 and this being separated from the Gazette Notification dated 31.12.1975, by a long gap of time, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. (2) The procedure prescribed for the conduct of the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act as per Rule 3(b) and (c) of the rules framed under Section 55 of the Act, has not been strictly followed. (3) The Government has not taken note of several Government Orders exempting certain types of lands from Acquisition Proceedings.

2. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is stated in para.11 of the counter affidavit that the substance of the notification was published in the Village on 22.1.1976 and not on 22.2.1976 as contended by the petitioner. Taking the correct date viz., 22.1.1976, it is contended that there is no long gap of time between the Gazette Notification and the publication in the village. I am inclined to agree with the contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate on this aspect. It is now well settled that the Gazette Notification and the publication in the village can be separated by a gap of time and whether the gap of time will vitiate the acquisition proceedings will depend upon the facts of each case. In this case, the gap of time is not too long and the enquiry under Section 5-A having been conducted only on 8.4.1976, there was also no prejudice to the land owners. Accordingly, I am dismissing the first contention.

3. So far as the second contention is concerned, the argument is that the objections submitted by the petitioners at the enquiry under Section 5-A on 8.4.1976 had been forwarded to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board which is the requisitioning authority. It is not disputed that the remarks of the requisitioning authority were communicated to the petitioner only on 16.10.1978. In para 22 of the counter-affidavit, these dates are admitted. In my view, this admitted position regarding the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board being communicated to the petitioners on 16.10.1978, nearly after two years after the enquiry under Section 5-A vitiates the entire enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The relevant portion of Rule 3(b) and (c) is extracted below to show that the contention of the petitioner is well founded.

3. (b). If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in Sub-sections (1) of Section 5-A, Collector shall fix a date of hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objec