ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioners are the owners of lands in S.Nos.11/4 and 11/9B respectively in Yemaneswaram Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Proposals were submitted for provision of house sites to the houseless 117 Adi Dravidars of Kattuparamakudi Village under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”). Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1.2.95. Publication in Tamil dailies was also made on 3.2.95. Notice in Form-3A of the Central Act was served on the land owners. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 22.3.95. In fact objections were raised for acquisition proceedings on the ground that the lands are required for dwelling purpose. The said objections were overruled. At that stage the second respondent realised that in view of the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”), acquisition of lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars should be made only under the State Act. Hence, by continuing the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Central Act, Form-II report was submitted to the District Collector who directed the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 in the Ramanathapuram District Gazette dated 1.11.95. An award enquiry was also held. The petitioners participated in the award enquiry and ultimately common Award No.16/95-96 dated 26.3.96 was also passed. Since the land owners refused to receive the compensation amount, the same was kept in revenue deposit. Possession of the land was taken on 1.4.96. After completing the usual formalities, lands were handed over and pattas were also issued to the beneficiaries on 26.6.96. On the above factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions questioning the notification published in the District Gazette under the State Act.
2. Mr. V. Rajanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on and after 22.11.94 when the validity of the State Act was upheld by the Apex Court, the respondents ought to have initiated the acquisition proceedings only under the State Act. Admittedly, notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1.2.95. Nevertheless, when the respondents realised their mistake in not initiating the acquisition proceedings under the State Act, ought to have issued Form-I notice under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act before the District Collector directed the publication of notification in the District Gazette on 1.11.95 under Section 4(1) of the State Act. In the absence of notice in Form-I under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated.
3. Mr. S.V. Durai Solaimalai, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, would submit that of course, Form-I notice was not issued to the petitioners before the notification in the District Gazette was published under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the State Act. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners were already given opportunity under the Central Act to participate in the 5-A enquiry, the same should be deemed to be an opportunity under the State Act. He would further submit that in the circumstances, question of issuing Form-III notice under the State Act cannot be insisted upon.
4. Following few facts are not in dispute. The petitioners are the owners of the lands in question. The lands were sought to be acquired for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. Proposals for the same were forwarded only under the Central Act. The same was in fact accepted and the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 was published on 1.2.95. Equally the facts as to the issuance of notice of enquiry under Section 5-A and the participation by the petitioners in the enquiry and their objections are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the notice in Form-I as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act was not issued to the petitioners.
5. Whether the notice of 5-A enquiry issued under the Central Act could be considered as a notice issued in Form-I under the State Act, is the primary question to be decided in these writ petitions. The Scheme of the Central Act is for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. After the proposal for acquisition is accepted by the Government, notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act is published in the Government Gazette and two Tamil dailies circulated in the locality. The object of publication of notification in the Government Gazette is to enable the people interested in the land to be aware of the acquisition proceedings so as to file their objections. Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 may within thirty days of the date of publication of the notification object to the acquisition of land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. In the event objections are received, enquiry under Section 5-A is conducted. In the event no objections are filed within the time stipulated, it is presumed that there are no objections for such acquisition from the land owner. The manner in which the notification under Section 4(1) should be published is provided in Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition (Tamilnadu) Rules. There is no individual notice contemplated under the Central Act to the owner of the land before 5-A enquiry under the Central Act. After objections are filed, the declaration under Section 6 of the Central Act is made declaring that the land is required for public purpose. After a declaration is made, notice of award is issued under Section 9 of the Act to the person interested. Award enquiry is held under Section 11 of the Central Act.
6. Coming to the State Act, the District Collector is empowered to acquire the land for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme. In this regard, he is empowered to direct the publication in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land. Before publishing such a notice, the District Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired. Where the District Collector authorises any officer to conduct enquiry, a detailed procedure to be followed is prescribed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4. As per the said clause, the officer so authorised after considering the explanation from the person interested shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations. After considering such report, the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit. Once the District Collector satisfies to acquire the land, notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is published in the District Gazette. The State Act entitles the person interested for a notice in Form-I under sub-section (2) of Section 4. In the absence of such notice, notification under Section 4(1) is bad in law. Immediately after 4(1) notification, the land sought to be acquired shall vest with the Government and the person interested will lose the title to the property itself immediately on publication of the notification in the District Gazette. In fact there is no question of taking over possession of the land as the vesting of the land with the Government is by virtue of the notification under Section 4(1).
7. In this background, it should be considered whether the land belonging to an individual could be vested with the Government without following the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 is mandatory in character inasmuch as it directs the District Collector or any officer authorised by him to call upon the owner or any person to show cause why it should not be acquired. The validity of Section 4(1) notification without there being a notice in Form-I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 in fact came up for consideration before this Court in the judgment in “N.LOGANATHAN v. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, A.D.W., TIRUVELLORE (1996 W.L.R. 28) wherein the learned Judge has held as follows:-
“As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the show cause notice required to be issued under S. 4(2) read with R.3 is mandatory and therefore should be strictly complied with. R.3 as stated already requires individual notice to be served and every attempt has to be made to serve the show cause notice individually on the owner or the person interested and if for any reason, individual notice could not be served as the person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him and if no such adult male member is found, notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business.”
The same question again came up for consideration before this Court in “TMT.PUSHPA BAI BOINSINGH v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT ” wherein this Court has set aside the Section 4(1) notification issued without there being a notice in Form I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 read with Rule 3.
8. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners having participated in the 5-A enquiry under the Central Act, cannot now plead that they were not given opportunity under the State Act. This argument of the learned Government Advocate is due to the mis-application of the provisions of the two different enactments. The provisions of the Act should be considered as a whole and with reference to the object of enactment. Though sufficient safeguards are made before the lands are acquired under the Central Act, in view of the fact that the lands are acquired for Adi Dravidars, the Government thought it fit to take away the procedures to be followed under the Central Act to avoid the delay in acquisition proceedings and have merely empowered the District Collector to publish notice in the Government Gazette under sub-section (1) of Section 4 thereby the lands notified to vest in the Government immediately on notification. In such circumstances, notice to the person interested in Form-I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 assumes more importance. It is well settled law that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived of without authority of law. The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 mandates the authorities to hear the objections of the persons interested over the land. Unless the same is complied, question of drawing an analogy to the provisions of the Central Act for the purpose of opportunity cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, in the absence of notice in Form-I read with Rule 3 under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the acquisition proceedings must be held bad in law.
9. The validity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Central Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in “NARENDRAJIT SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ” and the Apex Court held as follows:-
“It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the Act that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under Section 4. Even in extremely urgent cases like those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 17, the notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non. In some cases the Government may not follow up the notification under sub-section (1) by further proceedings specially where it finds that the land was unsuited for the purpose for which it is required. But the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and in our opinion a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of that provision of law must be held to be bad.”
The Apex Court in “MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD v. MOHD. SHAFI AND OTHERS ” has quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Central Act on account of being vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the government for the “public purpose” mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the “public purpose” for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the “locality” where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the “interested” persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the land for the alleged “public purpose” also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad.”
10. If we draw a similar analogy to the facts of this case, in the absence of Form-I notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act, notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is bad and is liable to be struck down.
11. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that in this case, award was passed as early as on 26.3.96 and since the petitioners protested to receive the compensation, it was kept in revenue deposit. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of “MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY v. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD. ” that once the award is passed, this Court should not adjudicate the validity of the impugned notification or for that matter the consequential proceedings.
12. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra), the Apex Court was considering the challenge to the acquisition of land under the provisions of the Central Act read with Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The declaration was made on 3.5.79 and the award was passed on 24.2.83. Possession also was taken on 4.3.83. After possession was taken the lands were transferred to Bombay Muncipal Corporation. The writ petition came to be filed on 4.7.83 after a lapse of four years. After referring to various judgments including “STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. KRISHNAN “, “STATE OF ORISSA v. DHOBEI SETHI (1995 (5) SCALE 1881)”, “STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DIGAMBAR (1995 (4) SCALE 98)”, “THE RAMJAS FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA “, “RAMCHAND v. UNION OF INDIA “, the Apex Court ultimately held as follows:-
“It is thus well settled that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notification. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.”
Justice S.B.Majmudar concurring with the judgment also held that “respondent Nos.1 and 2 had missed the bus by adopting an indolent attitude in not challenging the acquisition proceedings promptly and therefore, the result is inevitable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches”.
In the case of “MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER v. SHAH HYDER BAIG AND OTHERS “, the Apex Court was considering a writ petition filed questioning the award published in the year 1976, after almost 16 years i.e., in the year 1992 and held that the writ petition was not maintainable after the award was passed.
13. A careful reading of the above dictum of the Apex Court would reveal that the writ petition is not maintainable in the event the owner or the person interested in the land do not challenge the acquisition proceedings in time and such writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.
14. Coming to the facts of this case, notification under sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the Central Act was published on 1.2.95, which is sought to be pursued under the State Act. There is no individual notice as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act. The impugned 4(1) notification under the State Act was published on 1.11.95. Form-III notice was issued on 25.12.95. The petitioners objected to the acquisition proceedings. Nevertheless, final orders under the Act 31 of 1978 was passed on 29.3.96 and the petitioners have approached this Court on 29.10.96 and 26.3.97 respectively. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no delay as the petitioners have approached this Court within a period of six months/one year from the date of final orders. That apart, when the initial acquisition proceedings itself is invalid for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, in my considered view, question of delay also cannot be put against the petitioners. In view of the above, the judgments relied upon by the learned Government Advocate are not applicable to the facts of this case.
15. For all the above reasons, the impugned land acquisition proceedings of the second respondent published in No.14 Ramanathapuram District Gazette dated 1.11.95 under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the State Act in respect of the lands belonging to the respective petitioners are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.