IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16/06/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
WRIT APPEAL NO.560 of 2001
1. The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development
Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Special Tahsildar
(Neighbourhood Scheme)
Acquisition Officer, Nagercoil. .. Appellants
-Vs-
1. P. Thangalakshmi
2. P. Janarathanan
3. P. Mathusoothana Perumal
4. P. Nagalingam
5. P. Sankaralingam
6. Gomathi .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent
against the order of the learned Judge Mrs. Justice T. Meenakumari dated
10.1 2.1999 made in W.P.No.10363 of 1992.
!For appellants : Mr. M. Dhandapani
Addl. Govt., Pleader
^For respondents: Mr. A. Sivaji
:JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the
learned single Judge dated 10.12.1999 made in W.P.No.10363 of 1992, in and by
which the learned Judge, quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground of
violation of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules (in short “the
Rules”).
2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the
appellants and Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. In view of the limited issue, it is unnecessary for us to
refer all the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit and counter affidavit.
4. The learned single Judge, after finding that Rule 3(b) of
the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, has not been fully complied with,
interfered with the matter and allowed the writ petition. It is seen from the
particulars furnished that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) was conducted on 20 .06.1991. It is not in
dispute that the land owners/writ petitioners submitted their objection within
the time as provided. They also participated in the enquiry. The particulars
furnished in the counter affidavit show that the remarks of the requisitioning
body was obtained only on 25.06.1991, i.e., after the enquiry under Section
5-A of the Act.
5. It is not in dispute that enquiry under Section 5-A of the
Act was conducted on 20.06.1991. Rule 3(b) of the Rules [(now Rule 4(b)]
mandates that if any objection is received within the time prescribed, the
same have to be forwarded to the requisitioning Department and on receipt of
their remarks, the Land Acquisition Officer has to conduct enquiry. It
further shows that in the enquiry the lands owners as well as representatives
of the requisitioning body / Department are entitled to participate. The
Courts have held that compliance of Rule 3(b) [(now Rule 4(b)] is mandatory
and failure to follow the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
This aspect was considered by the learned Judge and rightly quashed the
acquisition proceedings for non-compliance of Rule 3(b). Though in the
counter affidavit particularly in para 4 the Deputy Secretary to Government,
Housing Urban Development Department has stated that remarks of the
requisitioning body have been communicated to the objectors, conveniently, the
date has not been specifically stated. On the other hand, in the subsequent
paragraph, viz., in para 6, the very same deponent has stated that enquiry
under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 19.06.2001 and 20.06.1991 and
the remarks of the requisitioning body was received on 25.06.1991. It is not
clear that after receipt of remarks from the requisitioning body, whether
further enquiry was conducted apart from the one conducted on 19.06.1991 and
20.06.1991 as stated in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, we are
in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and we do not
find any ground for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same
is dismissed. No costs.
kh
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development
Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Special Tahsildar
(Neighbourhood Scheme)
Acquisition Officer, Nagercoil.
