ORDER
Judgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.
1. The appellant herein has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.1990 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.13487 of 1986.
2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are the following:-
The appellant filed Writ Petition No.13487 of 1986 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the land acquisition proceedings taken up in pursuance of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.1458, dated 19.7.1985 and the declaration made under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No.2903 dated 7.11.1986 in respect of his land in Survey No.481/1, Alapalayam village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring 1.93 acres. The appellant, pleaded that he is the owner of the said dry land; he has 1/3 share in other Survey Nos. viz., 301, 453, 455/3, 477 and 478. There is a 50′ east-west mud road dividing the properties in Survey Nos.477 and 478 on the northern side on the one hand, and Survey Nos.301, 453, 455/3 and 481 on the south of the road. The said road is the only access to the appellant’s lands.
3. The appellant in the writ petition contended that there was no proper publication of the 4(1) Notification simultaneously by three modes as contemplated; the objections filed by the appellant were not properly considered. In the writ petition some more contentions are raised.
4. The learned single Judge, after considering the respective contentions, passed the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition. Hence the writ appeal is filed.
5. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is a long gap between the date of publication of the Notification in the locality and other publications under Section 4(1) of the Act which itself vitiated the acquisition proceedings; the objections filed by the appellant could be rejected only by the Government and not by the Land Acquisition Officer; and that alternative land is available and it was offered, by the appellant but the authorities, without properly considering this aspect, have simply refused to accept the alternative land offered as not suitable.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondents, supported the impugned order passed by the llearned single Judge in his arguments.
7. Both the learned counsel for the parties have cited few decisions in support of their respective contentions.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No.1458 dated 19.7.1985 was published in the official gazette on 31.7.1985, in newspapers on 18.8.1985, and the substance of it was published in the locality on 14.11.1985.
10. The appellant filed objections on 24.11.1985 for the proposed acquisition. Enquiry under Section 5A was conducted on 2.1.1986; objections were overruled on 17.1.1986; thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms. No.2903/S.W.D. dated 7.1.1986 which was published in the Gazette on 11.1.1986 and published in the newspaper and in the locality on 12.11.1986 and 13.11.1986. After notice, award was passed under Section 11 of the Act on 23.6.1989. The appellant was informed about the Award proceedings on 3.8.1989 itself.
11. Learned single Judge, having perused the land acquisition file produced by the respondent, in the order under challenge, has stated thus:-
“…It is seen that the Collector has only made his remarks as against each of the objections as to why the said objection cannot be accepted and the reasonings for not accepting the objections alone were communicated while he forwarded the remarks and the objections and the necessary proposals to the Government and it is only the Government in G.O.Ms. No.2903, Social Welfare Department dated 7.11.1986 accepted the recommendation of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and overruled the objections raised by the land-owners at the 5A enquiry and thereafter directed the Draft Declaration Notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and accordingly Section 6 notice was published.”
Hence it cannot be said that the Collector himself took the final decision for making a declaration under Section 6 and that he finally over-ruled the objections. It is only the State Government which has taken final decision for issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
12. As to the offer of the appellant to give an alternative land, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ appeal, stating that he inspected the alternative lands in the presence of the appellant; the appellant offered his land in Survey Nos.477/2 and 478/2 in two bits with the road frontage on the western side only and not on the southern side; in-between the two lands other lands belonging to different pattadars lie; the said lands offered are surrounded by agricultural lands on three sides; low tension electric lines and telephone lines are passing through the middle of the said lands; no compact lay out could be formed; the land linger acquisition in Survey No.481/1 adjoins the habitations of Adi Dravidas and caste Hindus; Adi Dravida beneficiaries are not willing to accept the alternative lands for the
reasons stated above; the appellant in the 5A enquiry offered the same lands as alternative land which were rejected for the very reasons; and hence the offer of the appellant could not be accepted. In view of the offer made by the appellant to provide alternative lands, we had directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to file an affidavit of a responsible officer indicating the reasons for the unsuitability of the land offered, in view of the dispute by the appellant that the land offered are suitable. Hence the second respondent, after inspecting the spot, has filed counter affidavit, reference to which we have already made above.
13. At the hearing the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Award was passed long back and even the beneficiaries were given patta. It is for the competent authorities to decide as to the suitability of the land. Unless there are compelling reasons to say otherwise, such as mala fides etc. in selecting a particular land, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not for this Court to decide about the suitability of a particular piece of land. In this view, we reject the contention of the appellant so far it relates to the offer of alternative lands.
14 Now, we take up for consideration, the contention that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of gap in the publication of 4(1) Notification in the official gazette, newspapers and in the locality. The purpose of the acquisition is not disputed, viz., that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas under a welfare scheme. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no mala fides were attributed, and no prejudice was pleaded on account of the long gap between the dates of publications of 4(1) Notification. Even before us there was no argument that there were any mala fides on the part of the respondents in acquiring the land. It was also not shown as to how any prejudice was caused on account of the gap between the dates of different modes of publications under Section 4(1) of the Act.
15. On the other hand the appellant filed objections, participated in the 5A enquiry, and after holding enquiry and after consideration of the objections the Collector recommended for rejecting the objections, and the State Government accepted the same, and took a final decision to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. We are also told that even the Award is passed, and pattas are issued to the beneficiaries.
16. A decision is cited by the learned counsel for the appellant viz., State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Rajendran and 23 others, 1993 (2) L.W. 352, in which reference is also made to another case in Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Jayaraman, 1992 W.L.R. 332 on which Judgment also the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance. Paragraph 11 of the Judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Rajendran and 23 others, 1993 (2) L.W. 352 aforementioned, reads:-
“In the instant case, there is a time gap as already pointed out, between the Gazette publication of the Notification and the public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality. There is an explanation offered for the delay which, as already referred to, was accepted in “Vijayaraghavan’s case by a Division Bench of this Court. We have also found that there is explanation upto 8.5.1985, and the explanation from 8.5.1985 till 13.11.1985 is not specific, it is only general. If the gap of time, is long as laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa’s case, by itself it does not lead to invalidity of the notification and the Court is required to find out whether such a delay is due to lack of bona fides in the proceedings and has caused prejudice to anyone. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the petitioners have not pleaded lack of bona fides on the part of the acquiring authority and even before us the purpose for which the acquisition is made has not been questioned. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that it is not a case in which there is lack of bona fide on the apart of the acquiring authority. As far as causing prejudice to any one is concerned, there is no plea in that regard. It is not the petitioner’s case that this delay has caused prejudice to them in any manner. We are of the view that in the absence of any attack by the petitioners on the motive of the acquiring authority so as to lead to lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acquisition of the lands in question and in the absence of any plea of prejudice being caused to them on account of the time-gap between the publication of the notification in the Official Gazatte and the publication of substance of the same in the locality, we find it very difficult to hold, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa’s case that the acquisition is vitiated by reason of this time-gap.”
17. A careful reading of the said judgment, in particular paragraph 11 extracted above makes it clear that in the absence of pleading of lack of bona fides on the part of the acquiring authority, and not showing any prejudice on account of the gap in the dates of publication of 4(1) Notification by different modes the acquisition proceedings are not vitiated, particularly when the purpose of acquisition is not disputed. As already stated above, the appellant did not dispute the purpose of acquisition, did not plead lack of bona fides on the part of the acquiring authorities in acquiring the land, and it was not shown how any prejudice was caused by the gap in the publication of 4(1) Notification in the Gazette, newspapers and in the locality. Hence the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.
18. No other point arises for consideration.
19. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this writ appeal. Hence it is dismissed. No costs.
Judgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J. and N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
20. After we pronounced the order, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant may be permitted to ask for reference, for enhancement of the compensation amount. It is open to the appellant to do so, if it is permissible and in accordance with law.