Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4881
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN
P. Jayachandran
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department & Another
Writ Petition Nos.32 to 36 of 2005 and 23428 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.28945 of 2003
Decided On : 16-11-2009
For the Petitioners:R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Advocate for M/s. N.V.V. Krishna for S. Manivannan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Malarvizhi Udhayakumar, Special Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of compliance with publication requirements under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the need for independent application of mind in the Section 5-A enquiry.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Agricultural Wet Lands - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1), Section 6 - G.O.Ms.No.1761 (Revenue Department) dated 210. 1982, G.O.No.617 (Revenue Department) dated 14. 1985 - The court discussed the validity of the acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compliance with the publication requirements. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of publication in official gazette and newspapers with wide circulation, and the need for independent application of mind in the Section 5-A enquiry. The court held that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the statutory provisions, and consequently, allowed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of agricultural wet lands, challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking quashing of the acquisition notification. The petitioner contended that the acquisition was bad as the lands in question were agricultural wet lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the mandatory publication requirements under Section 4(1) of the Act and lacked independent application of mind in the Section 5-A enquiry. The court also noted that more than 50% of the lands were relieved from the acquisition proceedings, rendering the purpose of acquisition irrelevant.
Issues: Validity of acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, compliance with publication requirements, and independent application of mind in the Section 5-A enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings must comply with the mandatory publication requirements in the official gazette and newspapers with wide circulation. The court emphasized the need for independent application of mind in the Section 5-A enquiry, and the significance of meaningful scheme for execution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the acquisition proceedings, and closed the connected writ petition.
The petitioner in W.P.No.32 of 2005 is the owner of the land situated in 66, Perumalagaram Village, Block I in Government Wet Survey Nos.50/2B1, 51/1, 51/2, 51/4, 52, 68/2A2 and 68/2B, Ambathur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. He is stated to be carrying on agricultural operations as a source of revenue. Under notice dated 10. 2002 in Form 3 A, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the Survey Nos.50/2B1 and 50/2B2 measuring 9 cents, 51/1, 51/2 and 51/4 measuring 88 cents, 53 measuring 1 Acre 29 cents 68/2A2 and 68/2B both measuring 82.5 cents situated at Perumalagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. An enquiry was conducted on 111. 2002 by the second respondent wherein the petitioner submitted his objections for acquisition of the agricultural wet lands yielding three crops per year.
The petitioner attended the enquiry at the office of the Village Administrative Officer, Perumalagaram Village on 12. 2003 and submitted his detailed objections on the acquisition of his agricultural wet lands. The petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.1761 (Revenue Department) dated 210. 1982 and G.O.No.617 (Revenue Department) dated 14. 1985 that the lands in question being agricultural wet lands, the acquisition was bad.
2. The allegation of the petitioner herein is that the second respondent, without considering the grounds of objection, accepted the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
3. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is challenging the acquisition proceedings seeking quashing of G.O.Ms.No.132, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 27. 2003 with respect to the petitioners property measuring 3 acres and 8.5 cents in Perumalagaram Village, Ambathur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Writ Petitioners in other writ petitions also claimed similar relief. Considering the common issue raised in these writ petitions, a common order is passed.
5. On notice, the second respondent filed individual counter affidavits. The contentions in these counters filed are on identical terms that Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Tiruvallur District Gazette Extraordinary No.14 dated 26. 2002; the Notification was published in two Tamil dailies, viz., Makkal Kural (Tamil) dated 26. 2002 and Dr.Namadhu MGR (Tamil) dated 26. 2002; an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted on 111. 2002 and the interested parties participated in the enquiry.
.6. The counter further refers to the fact that the objections were sent to the requisitioning body for opinion. By letter dated 3. 2003, the requisitioning body informed the respondents to overrule all the objections raised in the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act. Since the lands notified for acquisition are required for public purpose for formation of housing scheme of Ambattur Neighbourhood at Perumalagaram Village as one compact block, the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was communicated to the land owners. After the completion of enquiry on 12. 2003 under Rule 3(b) of the Act, proceedings were intimated to the petitioners rejecting their objections that a portion of the proposed acquisition of lands forming a compact block could not be excluded. The second respondent states that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act regarding acquisition of the lands was approved in G.O.Ms.No.132, Housing and Urban Development LA.1 Department dated 27. 2003 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.212, dated 27. 2003 and two Tamil dailies, viz., Dhinaboomi and Makkal Kural on 27. 2003. The gist of the notification was published in the panchayat office notice board on 37. 2003. The respondents deny the allegations only to contend that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were followed
