Notification and declaration held vague.

The petitioners purchased different parcels of land in Silayaneri village, Madurai Taluk for construction of residential houses for them. Only when the petitioners were served with notice under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, they became aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. The award enquiry was conducted on 16. 1982 and the petitioners submitted their objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they had not been served with notices for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25. 1977 and declaration under Sec.6 was published on 25. 1980. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of their lands under Sec.4(l) and the Declaration under Sec.6.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that the Notification under Sec4(l) was published in the Gazette on 25. 1977. The names of the petitioners did not find a place in the notification because their names were not shown in the Revenue Records. Theenquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was conducted on 8. 1977 and 18. 1977. The land owners did not turn up for the enquiry. The declaration under Sec.6 was published in the Gazette dated 18. 1980. The award enquiry was conducted on 13. 1982. One Tmt.Muthulakshmiammal appeared at the enquiry and stated that the lands had been divided into 52 house-sites and sold to several persons, retaining for herself Plot Nos.24, 25 and 26. It was stated by her that Plot Nos.34 to 36 and 44 to 52 were sold to the petitioners on 20.6.1968. Therefore, there was a second award enquiry on 16. 1982 and 16. 1982 giving notices to the purchasers. On the complaint of the petitioners that notices had not been sent to them for the Enquiry under Sec.5-A, it is stated that their names had not been shown in the Revenue Records and oh the question of publication of the notice under Sec.4(l) of the Act in the locality, it is stated that the same had been published in the Taluk Office, the Collector’s Office and the local Police Station on 17. 1977. The petitioners having failed to take advantage of the publication of the notification in the Gazette and the locality and not having filed objections at the enquiry under Sec.5-A, cannot maintain the writ petition.

3. Mr.S.Elamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raises the following points on the aforesaid pleadings: (1) The publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) in the locality is long after the publication in the Gazette and therefore the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. (2) The purpose of the acquisition, as seen from the notification under Sec.4(l) and the declaration under Scc.6 of the Act, is not very clear and therefore the said notification and declaration are vitiated for vagueness. (3) The declaration under Sec.6 is not in accordance with law because, it is stated that the compensation is to be paid out of public revenue, whereas in respect of an acquisition for the Housing Board, it should be stated that the compensation is to be paid out of a fund controlled by the local authority.I am inclined to accept all the points raised by the petitioner because they are supported by binding authorities. On the first question, the notification under Sec.4(l) was published in the Gazette on 24. 1977, whereas the publication in the locality was on 17. 1977. There is a long gap of 76 days between the two dales. The question is whether this long gap of time vitiates the acquisition proceedings. In Deepak Pahwa etc. v. Lt.Governor of Delhi and others, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1721, the following passage lays down the law on the point:

“3. It may be noticed at once that Sec.4(l) does not prescribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the no