ORDER
1. Petitioner, May George, has questioned the acquisition of the property that was purchased by her in the year 1969, the compulsory acquisition proceedings having been initiated by a notification issued under Sec. 4(1) as also under Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.1.1976. This writ petition was filed 10 years later in the year 1986.
2. Petitioner has averred that she had served as Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and she retired from its service as Chief Engineer and thereafter set up an industrial unit on this land in or around 1976. According to her, the land has all along been in her possession.
3. It is not in dispute that the proceedings for compulsory acquisition of this land namely S.No.36-1A-1 situate in Saidapet Taluk was notified for acquisition on 7.1.1976 and that notification had been published in the Government Gazette dt. 11.2.1976. The public purpose for which this and other
lands mentioned in the notification totalling an extent of about 35 acres, was “for the establishment of developed plots estate for location of electronics and doctoral industries on Lattice Bridge Road in Mahabalipuram area in No.144, Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk”. As the urgency provision had been invoked, enquiry under Sec. 5A of the Act had been dispensed with and according to the averments made in the counter affidavit, possession of the land was taken immediately and plots were developed in the acquired land. It has been averred that the petitioner had encroached upon the vacant land. She was served with notice by the Superintending Engineer in the year 1986 by letter dated 8.12.1986 and immediately thereafter petitioner filed this Writ petition taking advantage of that letter and claiming that she first became aware of the acquisition proceeding only after the receipt of that letter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was kept in dark about the acquisition of her land and that she was at no time served with notice. Counsel also submitted that according to the respondent’s records, notice had been sent to Thiru M. George, while the owner of the land was May George. It is however not in dispute that the name of the petitioner’s husband is George. It is not the case of the petitioner that the husband and wife were not living together in the year 1976 or for that matter at any point of time subsequently.
5. According to the petitioner, she has been living at the same address ever since the date of the purchase of the land that the address said where at Mylapore, in the City of Madras. It is not her case that she was at any time living near the land or anywhere within the district of Chengalput within which distant the land is situate.
6. Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner reads as under:
9(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
7. The section requires that notice be served on the occupier or on has authorised agent if one or other resides “within the revenue district in which the land is situate”. Section 45 of the Act deals with service of notice and sub-section (3) thereof provides that if the person on whom the notice is to be served cannot be found the service may be made on the adult member of the family residing with him, if no such adult member is found, notice may be served by affixing a copy on the outer door of the house in which the persons therein named ordinarily dwels or inter alia in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired. It has been averred in the respondent’s counter that notice was served on the petitioner by affixing a copy of the land as the petitioner was not a resident of that revenue district and her address was not available to the respondents. Though the name of the petitioner had been entered in the revenue records, the fact that she was residing at an address in Madras city and
her address in the city does not appear to have been entered in the revenue records.
8. In the notification published under Sec. 4(1) and under Sec. 17(4) of the Act, the land owned by the petitioner has been described with reference to the S.No., its boundaries and the name of the owner is mentioned as M. George. The declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is also dated 7.1.1976andhas been published in the same Gazette dated 11.2.1976.
9. The award came to be passed on 16.11.1979. In that award, again the name of the owner of this property has been mentioned as M. George. The extent of the property is 0.33 acres.
10. Petitioner as noticed earlier, was holding a responsible post in an organisation which itself is engaged in developing large extent of lands for housing purposes and must have been familiar with the law regulating compulsory acquisition of land. The land owned by her was not situate far away from her dwelling place and she must have been aware of what was happening in and around the land and if she had cared to visit, she would have known the acquisition proceedings that taken place in respect of that land and in and around the land and that an enquiry would have revealed that acquisition. Notification relating to the acquisition had also been published in the Gazette. The fact that publication was effected in the Gazette is not disputed. But the petitioner however contends that because the records referred to M. George and in some other place referred to as Thiru M. George, such notice could not possibly have reached the petitioner who is a lady and whose name is May George. Petitioner not being the resident of the District and notice having been affixed on the land, the description of the name of the owner as M. George or using the prefix ‘Thiru’ is of no consequence whatever. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner’s husband is George. Notice by affixture on the land, satisfies the requirement of Sec. 45(3) of the Act as also Section 9(3). The Award passed has been made within the period prescribed by law.
11. Even after that award, petitioner did not herself, for over 7 years, it is only in the year 1986, he come to court taking advantage of the letter that had been addressed to her with regard to her unauthorised occupation of the land. In the background of the petitioner’s own standing as a responsible Engineer and Officer of the Housing Board, she must be well aware of the nature of the acquisition proceedings and being a resident place not remote from the place that land was located and presumably also being aware of the possession had been taken and developments were carried out on the land pursuant to the notification, it must be held that the petitioner, though aware of the proceedings, conveniently chose to remain silents and made use of the letter asking her removal of the unauthorised occupation as the basis for challenging the and award and entire acquisition proceedings 10 years after the proceedings had been initiated and possession of the land had been taken.
12. Special Government Pleader submitted that the land had been acquired for forming an industrial estate and plots have been allotted to the persons for purpose of setting up industry to and the plot within which the land is situated was allotted to respondent No.3. It was also submitted that allotment was made as long back as in the year 1986.
13. The long delay that has occurred in filing this writ petition nearly 10 years after the acquisition, is itself sufficient to dismiss this petition in limini. However even on merits. I find no tenable grounds to hold that the award and not acquisition proceedings are in any way vitiated.
14. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.