Grant of exemption of land from acquisition is the function of executive.

J. KANAKARAJ, J.:

1. All these writ appeals and the sole Writ Petition No. 12767 of 1986 challenge the validity of certain acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the Salem Housing Unit of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Though the acquisition is in respect of one and the same scheme, different notifications were issued under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act. We do not propose to refer to the notifications because the learned single Judge has adverted to each of the notifications. Similarly we do not propose to refer to the facts of each writ petition, because the learned single Judge has referred to the facts of the cases. We will, however, refer to certain facts as and when necessary where some specific points have been raised apart from the general submissions made against the validity of the acquisition proceedings.

2. We will however, refer to the facts of one case for the sake of understanding the scope of the arguments. In W.P.No.4781 of 1985, the lands bearing Nos. 114/ 3A and 114/4, Ayamperumal Patty Village are involved. According to the petitioner, jasmine plants are grown in the lands. Notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act in respect of the above lands, was issued in G.O.Ms.No.755, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 4.9.1981, published in the Gazette dated 23.9.1981. The petitioner in W.P.No.4781 of 1985 filed objections through his advocate. An enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act was initiated on 28.11.1981. The petitioners advocate appeared for the enquiry and pressed the objections of the petitioner. A declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.726, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.4.1983, published in the Gazette on 4.5.1983. The writ petitioner challenges notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, on various grounds.

3. A counter-affidavit is filed in this writ petition stating that enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was conducted on 28.11.1981 in accordance with the Rules and the Regulations. The objections received from the landowner were sent to the Executive Engineer, Salem Housing Unit and his reply was forwarded to the land owner. It is thereafter, a further enquiry was held in the presence of both the land owner and the officer of the Housing Unit. An award enquiry was conducted on 7.8.1986 and an award was passed on 22.9.1986, in respect of the lands not covered by the stay orders. So far as the contention of the petitioner that his name did not find a place in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act is concerned, it is categorically stated that the petitioners name does find a place in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The other allegations of delay in completing the land acquisition proceedings are denied and it is stated that the acquisition proceedings are perfectly valid.

4. Wehave already stated that almost all the writ petitions which were filed, raised common questions of law except in a few cases where individual points are also separately raised. We will first deal with the common questions of law raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioner, before taking up the individual cases.

5. The common questions of law raised before the learned single Judge and now before us, are as follows:

(1) The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act are vague and therefore, the land owners are prejudiced in making their objections. Consequently, it is submitted that such a notification and declaration have to be quashed as illegal and unsustainable.

(2) The second attack on the acquisition proceeding is that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act should have been followed inasmuch as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a ‘company’ within the definition of the Land Acquisition Act. This point has been projected in different ways and we will advert to the same, at the time of considering the arguments.

(3) Many of the