Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
SRINIVASAN & ABDUL HADI
N.D. Ramanujam
Versus
Collector of Madras & Others
W.P. No. 10420 of 1985
Decided On :Decided on: 28-04-1994
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - RULE 3(B) OF TAMIL NADU LAND ACQUISITION RULES - NON-COMPLIANCE - ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS QUASHED - FRESH ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 5-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of providing water and drainage facilities and constructing a road. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was mala fide, that the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had not been complied with, and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition was not mala fide and that the purpose of the acquisition was a public purpose. However, the court found that the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had not been complied with. The court held that the respondents had failed to communicate the remarks of the requisitioning body to the petitioners and that there had been no enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act after the remarks of the requisitioning body were received.
Issues: 1. Whether the land acquisition was mala fide? 2. Whether the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had been complied with? 3. Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition was not mala fide and that the purpose of the acquisition was a public purpose. However, the court found that the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules had not been complied with. The court held that the respondents had failed to communicate the remarks of the requisitioning body to the petitioners and that there had been no enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act after the remarks of the requisitioning body were received.
Final Decision: The court quashed the entire acquisition proceedings after the stage of Section 4(1) Notification and directed a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act to be completed within six months from the date of the judgment. The court also directed that the award be passed within four months thereafter.
ABDUL HADI, J.
1. These two writ petitions were heard together since common questions are involved in both W.P. No. 10420 of 1985 seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the land acquisition proceedings relating to the land of an extent of 2 ground and 1602 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 3/1/part. Block No. 31, Mambalam, Village, Madras, owned by the petitioner N.D. Ramanujam. W.P. No. 4836 of 1987 also seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the land acquisition proceedings relating to the land adjacent to the abovesaid land bearing T.S. No. 3/4 of the same Mambalam Village, Madras, owned by the petitioner, Oxford English School a registered society.
2. In both, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is the same, viz., G.O.Ms. No. 1297, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 24.8.1982, published in the Gazette on 8.9.1982. Likewise S. 6 declaration under the Act is also same, viz., G.O.Ms. No. 1888 dated 19.12.1983 published in the Gazette on 15.2.1984.
3. In the light of the submissions made before us, the allegations in the affidavit in support of W.P. No. 10420 of 1985 may be summarised as follows: The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board informed by letter dated 27.1.1982 of it proposal to lays water main through the aforesaid petitioners property to provide water supply to the residents of the locality. By the said letter, the Board said that it would excavate a trench, execute all necessary works, the trench would be refilled and the land would be restored to its original condition. The petitioner requested for a joint inspection by his letter dated 8.2.1992, so that as inconvenience was caused to his schemes of project therein. The Board agreed for a joint inspection and fixed it 21st April, 1982. However, subsequently the petitioner requested for an adjournment of the said date. However, the Board without any further notification or joint inspection, trespassed into the petitioners property and unauthorisedly proceeded with its work. The petitioner protested by his letter dated 9.5.1982 and requested the Board to stop the work and drop the proceedings. Thereafter the petitioner did not hear anything from the Board. But, on 14.10.1982, a notice issued by the 2nd respondent, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition work, Madras City was served on the petitioner, which informed differently that an extent of land Gr. 1.2095 sq. ft. of the petitioner is needed for improvement and provision of water and drainage arrangement in South Kothandaraswamy Koil Street. By the said notice, the petitioner was required to lodge his objection, if any. It also stated that the objections would be inquired on 30.10.1982. The said notice is an act of reprisal against the petitioner for questioning the authority of the Board to enter into the petitioners property and dig trenches therein without permission. It is not a bona fide act of acquiring land for public purpose, but a mala fide one. The petitioner replied by his letter dated 28.10.1992, stating that the abovesaid notice was defective and had no effect for want of particulars like furnishing a plan etc. The said reply also stated that Section 4(1) Notification in this regard was illegal and that there was no compliance with the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules. The said reply also mentioned that the arrangements had been made by the petitioner to out up a building in the said property, for which, the plans had been already submitted to the Corporation of Madras. In the hearing on 30.10.1982, the petitioner reiterated the abovesaid contentions. The matter was adjourned to 10.12.1982. Two years thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to receive on 12.9.1984 a notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act from the 2nd respondent, informing the proposal of acquisition, varying the extent of the land to be acquired from Gr. 1.2093 sq. ft. to Gr. 1.1602 sq. ft. and also varying th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
