The court affirmed that procedural irregularities in land acquisition notifications do not invalidate the process if the landowner participated in the enquiry and raised objections.

ORDER :

(S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

This Review Application is preferred by the legal heirs of the appellant in W.A.No.2572 of 2001 seeking review of the common order dated 27.01.2016 passed in W.A.No.2572 of 2001 and W.P.No.2885 of 2011.

2.The petitioners herein are the legal heirs of Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan, who is the appellant in W.A.No.2572 of 2001. Pursuant to a notification dated 16.10.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the land belonged to Late T.N.Natarajan was acquired for the purpose of formation of Truck Terminal in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20286 of 1993 challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of his land situated in S.No.52, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63 and 6 of Nerkundram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai MGR District, measuring 4.4 Acres. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.10.2001. Challenging the same, Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2572 of 2001. In respect of the same acquisition proceedings, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Late Mr.T.N.Natarajan, have filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2885 of 2011 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of Government vide G.O.Ms.No.62, Planning, Development Department and Special Initiatives, dated 24.06.2009, and the communication of the Special Tahsildar in letter dated 22.12.2010, and for consequential direction forbearing the respondents from in any manner depriving the petitioners of their lands without due process of law. By a detailed order, both the Writ Appeal and the writ petition were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 27.01.2016. Seeking review of the order, the above Review Application is filed.

3.The land acquisition proceedings was challenged mainly on the ground that the objections of the petitioners were not properly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the petitioners have admitted that the land owner originally participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and raised his objections. It was only after conducting enquiry, and overruling the objection of landowners the Government issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Though it was pointed out that the notification under Section 4(1) was not published in two dailies having wide circulation in the locality, the Division Bench held that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, since the object behind wide publicity is only to give prior notice to the land owners at the relevant point of time to enable the land owners to submit their objections effectively. The Bench held that the petitioners cannot sustain such small infractions unless serious prejudice is caused to them. Taking note of the fact that Award was passed, the Division Bench held that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted before this Court that the writ petition was filed before passing of Award and that therefore, the writ petition cannot be thrown on the ground of delay and laches. The learned counsel then submitted that the acquisition proceedings is vitiated because of the failure to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in two dailies having wide circulation in the locality. The learned counsel submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in “Namadhu M.G.R.” and “Dinathoodhu” on 12.10.1991. He further submitted that the publication of the notification in the official Gazette was on 16.10.1991. Since the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in two dailies before it was published in the Gazette,