ORDER: Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the public purpose, namely, for formation of a neighbourhood scheme, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

2. After taking me through the various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) The respondents have not conducted proper enquiry in terms of Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) and Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules; (2) The local publication was not made in the Dailies having circulation in the locality where the land is situated. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, after taking me through the impugned proceedings as well as the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, would contend that the respondents have fully complied with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules and there is no defect or error in the acquisition proceedings, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. It is seen from the proceedings that the petitioner is the owner of 10 cents in T.S.No.N-4-24/2 of Nagercoil village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 5.10.1990 for valuable consideration. According to him, he is a small land-holder. Patta for this land was transferred in his name after purchase. For the purpose of formation of a Neighbourhood Scheme by Tamil Nadu Housing Board, a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1214, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.9.1991. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 11.12.1991, in two Tamil dailies viz., Kumari Murasu and Kinnas dated 19.12.1991 and in the locality on 19.12.1991. Individual notice in Form 3-A or 5-A enquiry was issued to the petitioner during February, 1992. The petitioner submitted his written objections on 13.2.1992. 5-A enquiry was conducted on 10.3.1992 and the petitioner also appeared on that date objecting the acquisition. According to the petitioner, even though he had submitted his objections within the time prescribed the second respondent had sent the remarks to the requisitioning body on 11.3.1992 which was served on the petitioner on 23.3.1992. According to him, no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and he has passed 5-A enquiry proceedings on 30.3.1992 which was served on him on 6.4.1992. There is no dispute that in terms of Sec.5-A(1), (2) read with Rule 4(b) and (c) of the Rules, if the land owner, submits his objection within the time prescribed namely, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice for 5-A enquiry, undoubtedly the second respondent had to forward the objection of the land owner to the requisitioning body, here in our case the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and on receipt of the remarks of the requisitioning body, the same has to be communicated to the land owner and thereafter further enquiry has to be conducted. After doing so, it is open to the Land Acquisition Officer to submit a report to the Government for taking further action. This position has been settled in various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The 5-A proceedings of the Special Tahsildar dated 30.3.1992 shows that the petitioner had submitted his objection in time and remarks were also called for from the requisitioning body. However, it is not stated either in the 5-A proceedings of the Special Tahsildar dated 30.3.1992 or in the counter affidavit of the first respondent regarding further enquiry after service of copy of the remarks of the requisitioning body to the petitioner. In such circumstances, in the light of the particulars furnished, I hold that the 5-A enquiry and the subsequent proceedings dated 30.3.1992 of the 2nd respondent is vitiated since the same was not conducted as laid down in Sec.5-A of the Act and Rul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document