IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 22/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Writ Appeal No.997 of 2001
Sulochana ... Appellant/Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to
Backward and Most Backward
Welfare Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai-9.
2.The Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Thoothukudi. .. Respondents/Respondents
Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 06.09.2000 made in W.P.No18961 of 1993.
!For Appellant : Ms.Milo for
Mr.P.Rathinadurai
^For Respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani,
Addl. Government Pleader
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 6.09.2000
made in W.P.No.18961 of 1993, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the
present appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. It is seen that questioning the land acquisition proceedings
initiated by the respondents for the purpose of providing house sites to the
Backward Class people, the petitioner has filed the writ petition even at the
stage of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Before the learned
Judge, it was contended that though the petitioner is the owner of the land
and the same was correctly mentioned in the revenue records and patta has been
issued in her favour, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been
issued in the name of her husband. It is also contended that apart from
publishing the 4(1 ) notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, it was
published in two newspapers viz., Dinathuthu and Malaimani, which have not
been circulated in the village where the property is situated. The learned
single Judge, after taking note of the above objection and in view of the fact
that the petitioner has approached the Court even at the stage of the 4(1)
notification, after observing that the petitioner is free to raise all the
above mentioned objections at the time of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act
and that it is for the authority to consider and rectify the defect and
proceed further, dismissed the writ petition. The said order was passed by
the learned single Judge on 06.09.2000.
4. In the present appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently raised the very same objections and prayed for quashing
of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the
learned Additional Government Pleader, by pointing out the reasoning of the
learned Judge, contended that inasmuch as the appellant has ample opportunity
to raise all these objections at the time of the 5-A enquiry, there is no need
to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and prays for
dismissal of the writ appeal.
5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant
materials. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/appellant has approached
this Court even at the stage of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act. It is her claim that though she is the owner of the land in question,
which is reflected in the revenue records, the 4(1) notification has been
issued in the name of her husband. She has also contended that both the
newspapers wherein the 4(1) notification was published have no circulation in
the locality where the property is situated. Though both the contentions are
acceptable, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, in view of the
fact that the respondents have not commenced the 5-A enquiry, the petitioner/
appellant is free to raise all the objections in the said enquiry. Courts
have repeatedly held that if defects are pointed out in the enquiry under
Section 5-A of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Land Acquisition
Officer to consider and rectify the defects and proceed further, if he so
desires. When such opportunity is available, we are not inclined to interfere
with the order of the learned single Judge.
6. In addition to the same, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has also brought to our notice that a fresh notification has been
issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of
India, New Delhi. If that be so, if the petitioner is aggrieved of such
notice/notification, it is for her to challenge the same by way of a separate
proceeding at the appropriate time. In this appeal, we are only concerned
with the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is challenged herein.
7. In view of the above mentioned reasons, except to observe that all
the objections raised before the learned single Judge as well as before us can
be raised before the Land Acquisition officer in the enquiry under Section 5-A
of the Act, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly,
the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
raa
To
1.The Secretary to
Backward and Most Backward
Welfare Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Thoothukudi.