K. Govindarajan, J.: The appellants are the owners of the lands bearing S.F.Nos.301/1 A2, 301/ IB, 302/1B, 301/1C, 302/1A2, 301/2, 302/1C, 302/2, 311/1 and 311/2 in Kallapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore Taluk, ‘Coimbatore District. The said lands were sought to be acquired by the Government for neighbourhood scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A notification under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No. 192, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 24.2.1994 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 24.2.1994. The appellants claims that they have submitted their objections on 19.8.1994. After holding enquiry under Sec.5-A of the said Act and after considering the objections raised by the appellants, as recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer, declaration under Sec.6 of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 28.6.1995. At this stage, the appellants have challenged the said acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 10426 and 10427 of 1999.

2. Mainly two points were raised in the writ petitions, namely, the lands sought to be acquired by the respondents are approved to form layouts and so they cannot be acquired, and, after getting remarks from the requisitioning body, on his objection, no further enquiry under Sec.5-A of the said Act as contemplated under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules was conducted, and so the entire acquisition proceedings are invalid. The learned Judge in the order dated 28.9.1999. after considering these submissions found that the same cannot be sustained and dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved the writ petitioners have filed the above writ appeals.

3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned counsel has reiterated the said two submissions before us also. He has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Ramanujam v. Collector of Madras and two others, 1994 WritL.R. 326, in support of his submission that failure to hold an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the said Act, after getting remarks from the requisitioning body, vitiates the entire proceedings. It is no doubt in the said decision, the Division Bench of this court, has held as follows:

“From this, what can be gathered is only that the objections of the petitioner in W.RNo. 10420 of 1985 of 1985 by his letter dated 8.11.1982 were sent to the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras for remarks and that reply was obtained from the commissioner. But, it is not mentioned in the counter affidavit when actually the said objections were sent to the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras and when actually the abovesaid reply was obtained. That apart it is also not averred whether the said reply was communicated to the petitioner and whether there was continuation of Sec.5-A enquiry pursuant to the abovesaid reply received from the Commissioner. The only allegation is that after the enquiry on 30.10.1982, when the matter was adjourned to 10.11.1982, the pe- titioner did not appear for enquiry on 10.11.1982. There is no record to show that the reply of the requesting authority was communicated to the petitioners. That there was no Sec.5-A enquiry after the above said reply was received from the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras. Therefore, it is clear that the requirements of Rule 3(b) have not been fully complied with.”

4. But, we have to appreciate whether the said decision will apply to the facts of the present case. Even according to the appellants, notification under Sec.4(l) of the said Act was published in the Government Gazette on 24.2.1994 and objections for the purpose of enquiry under Sec.5-A of the said Act were filed only on 19.8.1994. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules is relevant to appreciate the case of the appellants, which is as follows:

“3. Hearing of objections: (a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejecte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document