2004 Supreme(Mad) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.
Murthuzaviya Oriental High School represented by its Honorary Correspondent, Madras
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras and others
W.P.No.8510 of 1996
Decided On : 18 May 2004
Mohan Parasaran, Senior Counsel, for Satish Parasaran, for Petitioner.
D.Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1
N.Maninarayanan, for Respondent Nos.3, 4.
Land owners should have been given opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1), 5-A and 6-Acquisition proceedings-Government declaring withdrawal of acquisition proceeding with any opportunity of hearing to landowner-Proceedings vitiated.
2. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 and their father Arunachalam filed W.P.No.8819 of 1986 praying the Court to quash the notification issued under Secs.4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said writ petition, the present petitioner was 4th respondent. An interim stay of the operation of acquisition proceedings and the notifications impugned was granted in W.M.P.No.13103 of 1986 and the same was made absolute subsequently. The Government however, decided not to proceed further in the matter and consequently issued a notification in the Gazette dated 12.4.1995. From the said notification, it appears that the Government issued a letter dated 27th March, 1995. Thereafter, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.8819 of 1986, did not press the writ petition and consequently the same was dismissed.
3. According to the writ petitioner, being surprised by the withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings, sent a letter to the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition on 10th July, 1995 seeking clarification and wanting to know whether the acquisition proceedings had been withdrawn and if so on what grounds they were so withdrawn. The further plea of the petitioner is, since there was no reply he had to send a reminder and ultimately the petitioner received a reply dated 17.11.1995 from the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition that the acquisition proceedings had been withdrawn in terms of the powers conferred on the Government under Sec.48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and notification was issued in Government Gazette dated 12.4.1995 in Lr.No.99542/U2/90-28 Education, dated 27.3.1995. The contention of the petitioner is that such withdrawal was done behind his back and an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner, particularly when he had deposited the cost of acquisition virtually fift