Defect of vagueness cannot be cured by subsequent notification.

1. Pursuant to the requisition made by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (M.M.D.A.) for the acquisition of an extent of 33.16 acres of wet lands (13.42.0 hectares) in S.No.702/1, etc., in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District, Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act’) in G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.6.1991. The said notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II-Section 2 (Supplement), dated 26.6.1991, at pages 12 to 14. The notification was also published in the Tamil dailies “Makkal Kural” and “Malai Malar”, dated 26.6.1991, and in the locality on 4.7.1991 and 5.7.1991. The notice calling on the appellants to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act was duly served and the appellants appeared for the enquiry on various dates, and filed written statement objecting to the acquisition, which was communicated to the requisitioning authority for remarks. The requisitioning authority sent remarks on the objection petitions. The remarks, offered by the requisitioning authority were communicated to the appellants for further enquiry under Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Acquisition Act. The further enquiry under Rule 3(b) was conducted on 10.3.1992. The objection petitions filed by the appellants at the time of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act, the remarks of the requisitioning authority (M. M. D. A.) and the further objection petitions filed by the appellants at the time of enquiry under Rule 3(b), were considered, and finally it was decided to recommend to the Government to over-rule the objections and to approve the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act. The Government approved the declaration in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 3.7.1992. The declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 3.7.1992. The draft declaration under Section 7 of the Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in Lr.No.38245/XD III/A/12-l, dated 17.7.1992 and was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part-II- Section 2, dated 12.8.1992, The appellants then moved this Court in various writ petitions to call for the records relating to the aforesaid acquisition and quash the same by issuance of appropriate writ or order, on the ground inter-alia that the purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) notification is vague and that unless the purpose is clearly spelt out in clear and unambiguous terms, the appellants would be handicapped in making effective representation against the proposed acquisition. The requisitioning authority, namely, M.M.D.A., was impleaded as necessary party in the writ petitions. Respondents filed their return refuting the contentions raised by the appellants and justifying the acquisition as one for a public purpose after complying with all legal formalities. The learned single Judge of this Court consolidated all the writ petitions and passed common order dismissing the writ petitions and hence these writ appeals.

2. We heard learned senior counsel Mr.K.Chandru for the appellants, Mr.K.Natarajan, Learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Gowthaman Narayanan learned Standing Counsel for M.M.D.A.

3. The main thrust of the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the appellants is vitiated on the ground that the public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) notification is vague, and as such, it will not be possible for the appellants to put-forth their objections specifically. In our considered opinion, learned Senior Counsel is well-founded in his submission. In the notification issued in exercise of the powers under Section 4(1) of the Acq