IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. No.10449 of 2010

and

MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

C. Samraj (Deceased)

2. Gowri Samraj

3. S. Vijayarangam

4. S. Kumarakrishnan

P2 to P4 substituted as LRs of

deceased sole petitioner

vide order dated 08.11.2021

made in WMP No.25149 of 2021

... Petitioners

Versus

1. The Government of Puduchery

Rep. By its Special Secretary to

Revenue Department,

Puduchery.

2. The Sub-Collector (Revenue) – cum-

Land Acquisition Officer (South)

Villianur,

Puduchery.

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of

the 1^st respondent dated 23.04.2010 in G.O. (Ms.) No.8 published

in the Daily Thandhi, Puducherry Edition, on 24.04.2010 seeking

to acquire the Petitioner's lands measuring an extent of 1

hectare 57 ares 50 centiar in Survey Nos.291/3 and 293/6 of

Kalitheerthalkuppam Village, Villiayanur Taluk, Puducherry and

to quash the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.N.Muralikumar

for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm

For Respondents

: Mr.J. Kumaran

Addl. Govt. Pleader (Puducherry)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of

the 1^st respondent dated 23.04.2010 in G.O. (Ms.) No.8 published

in the Daily Thandhi, Puducherry Edition, on 24.04.2010 seeking

to acquire the Petitioner's lands measuring an extent of 1

hectare 57 ares 50 centiar in Survey Nos.291/3 and 293/6 of

Kalitheerthalkuppam Village, Villiayanur Taluk, Puducherry and

to quash the same.

The short facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are as under :

2. It is averred that the original petitioner is the owner

of the land in S. No.291/3 and 293/6 at Kalitheerthankuppam

village. While so, the Government of Pondicherry decided to

acquire the lands belonging to the original petitioner for the

purpose of providing free house sites to land less poor, for

which the respondents issued 4(1) Notification on 08.02.1994.

Immediately, thereafter the original petitioner made objections

on 21.03.1995 to drop the land acquisition proceedings.

Thereafter, the parties were served with Notice on 26.07.1995

stating that 5A enquiry was scheduled to be conducted on

22.08.1995. Subsequently, after hearing the objections raised

by the original petitioner, Declaration u/s 6 was published on

14.12.1995 in the Gazette.

Challenging the said 4(1)

Notification and 6 Declaration, the original petitioner filed

W.P. No.18036 of 1995 and this Court vide its order dated

09.08.2001 allowed the said petition and accordingly, quashed

the proceedings from the stage of enquiry u/s 5 (A). Further,

the respondents were granted liberty to proceed in accordance

with law. Thereafter, the respondents filed Clarification

petition in W.M.P. No.32984 of 1995 in W.P. No.18036 of 1995 and

accordingly, this Court vide its order dated 13.10.2003 issued

certain clarifications. In compliance of the said order dated

13.10.2003, it is averred that the respondents once again issued

notice under section 5A, fixing the date of enquiry as

24.05.2004, which was sent to the original petitioner through

RPAD on 11.05.2004 and the same was received by him on

18.05.2004. Further, the original petitioner through his

counsel sent a letter dated 20.05.2004 seeking certain

information and to file his objection, but the same was rejected

by the land acquisition officer. Though the said official

rejected the right of the petitioner, however, later gave

another opportunity to participate in the 5A enquiry. Again,

the original petitioner through his counsel gave representation

on the same day and requested to postpone the enquiry so as to

file his objections in the 5A enquiry. In the mea