Mandatory provision not complied with.

1. Section 4(1) Notification under G.O.Ms.No.879 (H & UD) dated and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.447 (H & UD) dated are the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition seeking for the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus requesting this Court to quash the same and forbear the respondents herein from acquiring the petitioners’ agricultural lands situate in Kottagoundampatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

2. According to the petitioners, they, the members of the Joint Hindu Family are owning 37.5 Hectares in Kottagoundampatti village and in the said lands they constructed a tiled house in which they are residing and they have also installed electric motor pump sets after sinking three wells and two bore wells and for irrigation purposes they have put up P.V.C. pipes of more than 1000 metres with considerable cost. In the above lands there are several palmyra trees and coconut trees besides the said three wells and two bore wells. Suddenly, they noticed the publication dated 7. 1991 that the above lands are to be acquired for construction of the houses for Tamil Nadu Housing Board under Salem Neighbourhood Scheme. They sent their objections on 10. 1991 and attended the enquiry on 10. 1991. Even without following the mandatory provisions of Rule 3(b) and (C) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed under the Act and without considering the objections, the Declaration under Section 6 had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27. 1992. Hence, this writ petition.

3. This writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted on 11. 1992. The petition dated 10. 1995 to vacate the interim stay was filed by the respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Secretary, Urban Department and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition. The petitioners filed another application in W.M.P.No.24724 of 1999 on 110. 1999 seeking permission to raise the additional grounds. At that stage, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a petition in W.M.P.No.27770 of 1999 to implead Tamil Nadu Housing Board as one of the respondents as it is the proper and necessary party for the disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, this application was ordered on 112. 1999. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was made as the third respondent. The third respondent filed the counter dated 112. 1999 on 3. 2000 before this Court giving out their stand and also answering the additional grounds raised by the petitioners.

4. Mr.N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel while arguing the matter would point out that the 3 (b) enquiry has not been conducted and as such, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

5. On the other hand, it is represented by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 through counter that the 3(b) enquiry was conducted, that the remarks from the requisitioning body were called for and that further opportunity was given to the petitioners to make their objections and only thereafter, the Section 6 Declaration was issued.

6. However, Mr.N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel would refute the said contention stating that the petitioners had not been given any opportunity for 3(b) enquiry and as such, they had no occasion to participate in the said enquiry. He would request this Court to verify the original records with reference to the plea made by both the parties. But however, this Court has not chosen to do the same, in view of the fact that Mr.N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel has very seriously pursued the additional ground urged in the petition filed in W.M.P.No.24724 of 1999. The following is the additional ground raised by the petitioners:-

“The public purpose has been given exhaustive definition in Section 3(f) of the Act. Section 3(f)(VI) (VII) makes the provision for carrying out any housing scheme by the Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, a public purpose. The said provisions are extracted below”

“3(f). the expression ‘public purp