No objection filed by land owner to Section 4 notification.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing Department, dated 5. 1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16. 1975 and also the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner herein bearing S.Nos.4/lBl, 4/1B2 and 4/1B3 measuring 0.671/2 acres in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid land in question. The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for acquisition of an extent of 146.54 acres of land in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, for the purpose of implementation of Housing Scheme to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population for development of the area as now Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The Government caused the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing Department, dated 5. 1975 to be published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 16. 1975. It appears that the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was also published in the village and also by beat of Tom torn. When the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has not come forward with objections to the proposed acquisition. After holding necessary enquiry, as contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act, the Government on consideration of the entire proceedings including the report of the Enquiring Authority, was satisfied that the land was suitable for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired and after having satisfied about the suitability of the land caused the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act as in G.O.Ms.No.973, Housing Department, dated 6. 1978, published on 6. 1978. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16. 1975, the substance of the Notification was published in the locality only on 112. 1975 and that there was an inordinate delay in causing the publication of the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in the locality. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity for participating in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and consequently the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the fact that the Government had withdrawn large portion of the property in question, the property belonging to the petitioner should have been withdrawn from the acquisition.

4. In reply, learned Government Advocate contended that when the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette the Government caused simultaneous publication of substance of the Notification as contemplated under Sec.4 of the Act. Learned Government Advocate further contended that since the petitioner has not filed any objection with reference to the acquisition he cannot participate in the enquiry. Learned Government Advocate also contended that having regard to the policy of the Government, with reference to the exclusion of certain categories of lands, certain portions were withdrawn from the acquisition and consequently the petitioner cannot have any grievance with reference to withdrawal of some land from the proposed acquisition. However, Sec.6 declaration was issued only after having satisfied with the suitability of the land notified under Scc.4(1) of the Act and was published on 16. 1975. It is not disputed that the substance of the Notification was also published on 112. 1975.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an ino