The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act can vitiate the acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the importance of providing landowners with a reasonable opportunity to raise objections and participate in the enquiry.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.631, Housing and Urban Development, dated 26.06.1985 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section 2, Supplement, dated 10.07.1985, in publishing notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, G.O.Ms.No.1173, Housing and Urban Development, dated 29.07.1986 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 30.07.1986 in publishing Declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award No.2/88, dated 29.07.1988 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. Since all the above Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals are in relation to the acquisition proceedings, though for different reliefs, they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these batch of cases are as follows:-

(a) Three different notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, vide G.O.Ms.No.631, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.06.1985, G.O.Ms.No.607, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.06.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.628, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.06.1985 to acquire large junk of land for formation of Neighbourhood Scheme of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Sankaraperi Village near Tuticorin.

(b) The owners of the land in S.Nos.122/2, 124/1A, 131, 122/1B and 125/2 filed W.P.No.10716 of 1988, challenging the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.631, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.06.1985 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1173, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.07.1986. Similarly, the land owners in respect of S.Nos.8/2B, 8/2A and 8/3B filed W.P.(MD) No.10717 of 1988, challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide G.O.Ms.No.607, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.06.1985 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1172, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.07.1986 and the land owners in respect of S.Nos.137/1A1, 120/2, 119/1A, 134/2B2 and 137/1A1 filed W.P.(MD) No.10718 of 1988, challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide G.O.Ms.No.628, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.06.1985 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.1171, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.07.1986. In all the Writ Petitions, the Award Nos.2/88, 3/88 and 1/1988, dated 29.07.1988, passed in respect of the lands covered by 3 different set of acquisition proceedings, referred to above were also challenged.

(c) One of the grounds raised in all the above three Writ Petitions is that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not properly conducted and that the acquisition proceedings culminated into issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. A specific contention was also raised with reference to Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government.

(d) It appears that several Writ Petitions were filed by various land owners challenging the same notifications. Some of the Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.10939 to 10941 of 1987 came before a learned Single Judge and a learned Single Judge of this Court, after recording a finding that the procedure under Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed by Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 55(1) of the Act had not been followed and following the consistent view taken by this Court in several judgments, particularly the Division Bench of this Court in N.D.Ramanujam v. Collector of Madras and 2 others (1994 WLR 326) and