Notification u/s 4(1) ceased to have force.

For the purpose of laying a scheme road under the Madurai District, South-west Extension, Part III Town Planning Scheme, R.S. No. 2/6-B and some other lands in Madakulam Village, Madurai Taluk, were notified under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the notification was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 14th December, 1962, invoking the urgency provisions and by dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-A. The draft declaration under section 6 was published on 9th May, 1962. There was an erratum to the declaration, and the same was published on 11th December, 1963. Out of an extent of 4.45 acres declared for acquisition, awards for an extent of 4.45 acres were passed in the years 1964 and 1965. There remained only an extent of 11 cents in R.S. No. 2/6B. A portion of that land belonged to one Ayisha Bibi. She made a representation to the Government to reduce the width of the road so far as her land was concerned. The Government acceded to that request by order dated 15th December, 1966, and as a consequence, the width of the road was reduced from 33 feet to 30 feet. Ayisha Bibi filed W.P. No. 3408 of 1967, and the same was dismissed on 15th October, 1969. Award enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner and he acknowledged the notice in May, 1969. As he did not turn up, another notice was issued to him and the same was received by him and he participated in the enquiry and filed objections. Ultimately, an award was passed on 23rd February,1970, for the acquisition of 1,080 square feet belonging to the petitioner. Notice under section 12 (2) was issued to the petitioner asking him to receive the compensation amount. He received the notice on 24th February, 1970. He filed this writ petition on 2nd March, 1970, challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

2. Mr. Krishna Ayyar, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, put forward the following contentions:

(i) As the acquisition is made for the purpose of laying a scheme road under the scheme framed under the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, the declaration made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in the year 1962, ceased to have effect under the Land Acquisition Act, on the expiry of three years from the date of the notification as the acquisition proceedings were not completed before the expiry of three years;

(ii) The proposed road is a blind road for which a width of 30 feet is not required. The petitioner had voluntarily given a portion of his land for the purpose of the road and it is mala fide and inequitable to acquire a part of the building portion belonging to the petitioner. If a portion is acquired, the remaining portion of the building would become uninhabitable;

(iii) The scheme was not properly registered. As such no acquisition can be made for the purpose of the scheme;

(iv) The building of the petitioner was put up after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Commissioner of the Madurai Municipality. A portion of the building cannot be sought to be demolished for the purpose of laying the road inasmuch as the building was put up with the sanction of the competent authority. The Government are, therefore, estopped from acquiring the building portion; and lastly;

(v) There was no ground to invoke the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-A of that Act as the award itself was passed only after an interval of about 8 years after the date of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. On behalf of the respondents, the validity of the foregoing contentions is controverted and it is contended that the acquisition was not made under the Town Planning Act, but was made under the Land Acquisition Act, that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Acquisition officer and that the petitioner is not entitled to question the Validity of the proceedings on account of the inordinate delay and laches on his part in invoki