Principles of natural justice has to be followed.

In these writ petitions notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Central Act) (in short, "the Act") in G.O.Ms.No.638 Housing and Urban Development [L.A.3(2)] Department dated 18.07.1995 is challenged by the petitioners in respect of their lands to an extent of 1.72 and 2.58 acres comprised in Survey Nos.295/1, 296/2 and 296/5 and 296/2B, 296/5B, 295/1 and 296/5 in Kalapatti village, Coimbatore District.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the owners of the above said extent of lands and after purchase, they have been in possession of the said lands. Land acquisition proceedings under the Act has been initiated by the respondents to acquire lands to an extent of 14.00.5 hectares in Kalapatti Village for the purpose of construction of houses under Neighbourhood Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 25.02.1994, however, it was published after four months in the Tamil Nadu Government gazette on 15.06.1994.

2(a). The second respondent was appointed by the Governor to discharge the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. The second respondent has also conducted enquiry under the said provision in September,1994. The petitioners were present on the date of enquiry and have made their objections orally as well as in writing that the acquired lands are the only livelihood for them and they are small farmers.

2(b). According to the petitioners, the second respondent has not forwarded the remarks of the requisitioning authority, viz., the third respondent, Housing Board on the objections made orally as well as in writing, recorded by the second respondent as per the procedure. The second respondent, after obtaining remarks from the requisitioning authority, should have forwarded the same to the land owners/interested parties and conducted another enquiry if necessary. By not forwarding the remarks of the requisitioning authority, the petitioners valuable right in giving objections properly has been affected.

2(c). According to the petitioners, they were not aware of the subsequent declaration passed under Section 6 of the Act during the year 1995. Fresh applications were invited for issuance of patta to landowners and the petitioners were issued patta in respect of the above said lands on 012. 1995. Therefore, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. It was only after the notice was received in award proceedings during the first week of June,1997 for enquiry dated 18.06.1997, called by the second respondent, the petitioners came to know about Section 6 declaration passed by the respondents on 18.07.1995 in G.O.Ms.No.638.

3. The land acquisition proceedings are challenged on various grounds including-

1. Between 4(1) notification and 6 declaration, there has been a gap of one year and five months and therefore, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is vitiated; and according to the petitioners, the delay in approaching the Court is due to the reason that they were issued patta by the Revenue Department in the year 1995;

2. The second respondent has not followed the procedure for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by forwarding the remarks of the requisitioning authority, viz., the third respondent on the objections made by the petitioners for further enquiry;

3. While notification under Section 4(1) was issued in G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 25.02.1994, the same was published in the gazette after four months, viz., on 15.06.1995; and

4. After the date of declaration under Section 6 viz., 18.07.1995, pattas were issued to the petitioners by the Revenue Department in respect of same properties on 012. 1995.

4. The third respondent, requisitioning authority, viz., Coimbatore Housing Unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its counter affidavit has stated that the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of the Coimbatore Housing Unit has requeste