{"id":244054,"date":"2003-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003"},"modified":"2016-11-27T09:08:09","modified_gmt":"2016-11-27T03:38:09","slug":"ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 13\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN\n\nWRIT PETITION No. 38690 of 2002\nand W.P.Nos.  38721 to 38727, 38728, 38729, 38731,   387\n32,  38733, 38734, 38735, and 38736 of 2002, 38691 to 38700, 38712, 3\n8713, 38714, 38715, 38716, 38717, 38718, 38719 and 38720 of 2002, 459\n73 to 45975, 45986 of 2002  and 7742 to 7746 of 2003,  46279 to 46282\n of 2002,  45962 to 45966 of 2002, 45968 and 45985 of 2002,  7741, 77\n47 to  7749 of 2003, 45969 to 45972  of 2002, 45976 to 45984  of 2002\nand\nWPMP.Nos: 57762, 57764, 57766, 57768, 57770, 57772, 57774, 57776, 577\n789, 57780, 57782 of 2002, WVMP.95 of 2003 WPMP.NOs.57816, 57818, 578\n20, 57822, 57824, 57826 of 2002 WVMP.59, 60, 70 to 76 of 2003,\nWPMP. Nos:57834, 57836, 57838, 57840, 57842, 57844, 57846, 57848, 57850\nof 2002 WVMP.61 to 69 of 2003, WPMP.Nos:57802, 57804, 57806, 57808, 57810\n, 57812, 57814 of 2002 WVMP.NOs:52 to 60 of 2003, WPMP.Nos:67360,\n67362, 67364, 67366, 66975, 66977, 66979, 66981, 66983, 66985, 66987,\n66989, 66991, 66993, 6995, 66997, 67001, 67003, 67005, 67005, 67009,\n67011, 67013, 67015, 67017, 67019, 67021, 67023 of 2002, WPMP.Nos:9937,\n9938, 9939, 9940, 9941, 9942, 9943, 9944, 9945, 9946, 9947, 9948,\n9949, 9950, 9951, 9952, 9953, 9954 of 2003.\n\nW.P.No:38690 of 2002\n\nAyyavu                                         ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by\n   The Secretary to Govt.,\n   Housing and Development Department,\n   Secretariat, Chennai-9\n\n2. The Special Tahsildar\n   (Land Acquisition)\n   Unit IV, TNHB Schemes,\n   Nandanam, Chennai-35                         ..Respondents<\/pre>\n
For petitioners ::  Mr.M.M.Sundaresh
\nin all Wps<\/p>\n
For respondents ::  Mr.Gomathinayagam, Spl.G.P. (L.A)
\nin all WPs<\/p>\n
        Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
\nfor the issue of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
        In  Writ  Petition  Nos:38690,  38721  to  38727, 38728, 38729, 38731,
\n38732, 38733, 38734, 38735, and  38736  of  2002,  the  petitioners  challenge
\nG.O.Ms.No:448,  Housing  and Urban Development Department, dated 21.10.1999 in
\nissuing  Section  4(1)  Notification  and  G.O.Ms.No:489,  Housing  and  Urban
\nDevelopment  Department  dated  6.12.2000  in  issuing  the  Declaration under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In Writ Petition Nos:  38691 to 38700, 38712, 38713, 38714, 38715,
\n38716,  38717,  38718,  38719  and  38720  of  2002, the petitioners challenge
\nG.O.Ms.No:446, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21 .10.1999  in
\nissuing  Section  4(1)  Notification  and  G.O.Ms.No:493,  Housing  and  Urban
\nDevelopment Department  dated  6.12.2000  in  issuing  the  Declaration  under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   In  Writ Petition Nos:45973 to 45975, 45986 of 2002 and 7742 to 7
\n746 of 2003,  the  petitioners  challenge  G.O.Ms.No:305,  Housing  and  Urban
\nDevelopment  Department,  dated 25.7.2000 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification
\nand G.O.Ms.No:401, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28.9.2001 in
\nissuing the Declaration under Section 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In Writ Petition Nos:  46279 to 46282  of  2002,  the  petitioners
\nchallenge  G.O.Ms.No:493,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department, dated
\n27.10.1999 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and  G.O.Ms.No:491  ,  Housing
\nand  Urban  Development  Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration
\nunder Section 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  In Writ Petition No:  45962 to  45966  of  2002,  the  petitioners
\nchallenge  G.O.Ms.No:449,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department, dated
\n21.10.1999 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and G.O.Ms.No:495, Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration  under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In  Writ  Petition  No.   45968 and 45985 of 2002, the petitioners
\nchallenge G.O.Ms.No:457,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department,  dated
\n26.10.1999 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and G.O.Ms.No:490, Housing and
\nUrban  Development Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  In Writ Petition Nos:  7741, 7747 to 7749 of 2003, the petitioners
\nchallenge G.O.Ms.No:456,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department,  dated
\n26.10.1999 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and G.O.Ms.No:492, Housing and
\nUrban  Development Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  In Writ Petition Nos:45969  to  45972  of  2002,  the  petitioners
\nchallenge  G.O.Ms.No:463,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department, dated
\n27.10.1999 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and G.O.Ms.No:491, Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration  under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  Writ  Petition  Nos:45976  to  45984 of 2002, the petitioners
\nchallenge G.O.Ms.No:375,  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Department,  dated
\n31.8.1999  in issuing Section 4(1) Notification and G.O.Ms.No:403, Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 6.12.2000 in issuing the Declaration  under
\nSection 6 of The Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   In  all  the  above  writ petitions, the lands were sought to be
\nacquired for the purpose of development of Satellite Town by  the  Tamil  Nadu
\nHousing  Board in Narasingapuram and Parvatharajapuram Villages in Poonamallee
\nTaluk.  The purpose is common, namely, development of Satellite  Town  by  the
\nHousing Board.    The  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board  submitted  requisition for
\nacquisition  of  private   patta   lands   measuring   34.22.0   Hectares   in
\nNarasingapuram  Village,  Poonamalee  Talk  in  around  the  area  Namele,  in
\nNarasingapuram  Village,  but   also   the   lands   situate   in   Vellavedu,
\nSembarambakkam,  Parvatharajapuram and Kuthambakkam villages including the dry
\nlands and poramboke lands for the implementation of Satellite Town scheme.  On
\nthe said proposal Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated.  As  seen  from
\nthe counter affidavit, after considering the objections, the Declaration under
\nsection 6  of  the Land Acquisition Act was published.  It is contended by the
\nrespondents that the acquisition is for  a  public  purpose,  and  it  is  not
\narbitrary, not illegal and not unjust.  It is also contended by the respondent
\nthat  there  cannot  be  any  legal  impediment  for  acquiring  wet  lands or
\nagricultural  lands  where  crops  are  being  raised,  for  the  purpose   of<\/p>\n
development of satellite towns.  There is no dispute about the extent of lands
\nnotified  under  section  4(1) Notification or Section 6 Declaration issued in
\nthat behalf.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Mr.S.S.Sundaresh, learned counsel appearing for  the  petitioners
\nin all the writ petitions raised the following two points:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     The  publication  of  Section  4(1) Notification and Section 6
\nDeclaration were made in Newspapers which have no circulation in the  locality
\nand  which  are  insignificant  and  therefore the acquisition is liable to be
\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  There  is  no  consideration  of  the  objections  by  the  Land
\nAcquisition  Officer and there being a total failure of application of mind to
\nthe objections raised before the Land  Acquisition  Officer,  the  acquisition
\nproceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Per contra, it is contended by Mr.Gomathinayagam, learned Special
\nGovernment  Pleader  that  Section  4(1)  Notifications  as  well as Section 6
\nDeclarations were published in the registered Newspapers like Malai Murasu  or
\nMalai  Malar  or  Madurai  Mani  or Makkal Seithi or Dinaboomi or Dinakaran or
\nArasiyal Tharasu and they being registered newspapers  having  circulation  in
\nthe  locality,  it is contended that the publication is in conformity with the
\nstatutory provision of Section 4 and  Section  6  of  the  Act.    Apart  from
\npublication,  substance of the publication has been affixed in the locality as
\nwell as in the Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  As regards the second point, the learned counsel  contended  that
\nthe  Land  Acquisition  Officer has forwarded the objections to the Government
\nand it is the Government which makes the ultimate decision to proceed  further
\nwith  the  acquisition  at  the  stage  of  issuing  Section 6 Declaration and
\ntherefore the acquisition is not vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In view of the two limited contentions advanced, it  may  not  be
\nnecessary  to  set out the details of the lands or the details of the dates on
\nwhich the respective  Notifications  or  Declarations  were  being  issued  or
\npublished  or  affixed or effected, nor, it is necessary to set out the extent
\nof the lands acquired or other details relating  to  the  lands  notified  and
\ndeclared.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  The two points that arise for consideration in this batch of Writ
\nPetitions are:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     Whether the acquisition is liable to be quashed for failure to
\npublish  the Notifications and Declarations in the Dailies which are having no
\ncirculation in the locality and in insignificant dailies?\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)    Whether there is total non application of mind on the part  of
\nthe Land Acquisition Officer and non consideration of the objections raised by
\nthe land owners?  and whether this vitiates the acquisition proceedings?\n<\/p>\n
        16.    On  the  first  point,  this  court  finds  that  Section  4(1)
\nNotification as well as Section 6  Declaration  have  been  published  in  the
\nregistered Newspapers  having  circulation  in  the  locality.    There  is no
\nspecific averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petition suggesting
\nthat the registered newspapers in which section 4(1) Notification and  Section
\n6 Declaration  have  been  published have no circulation in the locality.  The
\nlands are located in Poonamallee Taluk which  is  just  outside  the  city  of
\nMadras.   All  the  Newspapers are registered newspapers in the City of Madras
\nand having circulation in the locality as set out in  the  counter  affidavit.
\nIt  has  been  specifically stated in the counter affidavit and the files also
\nwould disclose that Section 4(1) Notifications and Section 6 Declarations were
\npublished in the two  registered  Tamil  Dailies  having  circulation  in  the
\nlocality.   As  already pointed out, no specific averment has been made to the
\neffect that the newspapers have no circulation at all in the locality or  that
\nthe  newspapers  have  no  circulation  at  all  in  the  locality or that the
\nnewspapers  is  not  a  registered  newspaper  or  that  the  newspapers  have
\ncirculation only  in  other  part of the State of Tamil Nadu.  Materials would
\nshow that the newspapers are registered newspapers and they  have  circulation
\nin  and  around  the  City  of  Madras  including the locality in question and
\ntherefore  the  first  contention  advanced  by  the  petitioners  cannot   be
\nsustained.   This  court  had occasion to consider the identical contention in
\nW.P.No.6484 of 1995 (Dalmiah Cements (Bharat) Ltd., Vs.  State of  Tamil  Nadu
\nand  2  others) etc., batch etc., batch in detail and following the same, this
\ncontention has to fail.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  It is also  sought  to  be  contended  that  the  newspapers  are
\ninsignificant newspapers.    On  a  perusal  of  the file, it is seen that the
\nnewspapers are not insignificant newspapers and it cannot also  be  held  that
\nthe newspapers  have  no  circulation in the locality.  In the affidavit filed
\nsupport of in most of the cases, no such contention has been set  out,  except
\nstating  that  the  ag  ricultural  lands shall not be acquired and there is a
\ndelay between Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration or there  is
\na  wide  gap or that a report of Dr.M.S.Swaminathan, Research Scholar is being
\nrelied upon to show that  agricultural  lands  shall  not  be  acquired.    No
\nspecific  averment  has been made in the affidavit filed in support in most of
\nthe writ petitions that the newspapers in which Section 4(1) Notifications  or
\nSection  6  Declarations were published have no circulation in the locality or
\nthat they re insignificant newspapers.  In the circumstances, this court holds
\nthat the first contention advanced cannot be sustained.  The  reliance  placed
\non  the  pronouncement  of  a  Division  Bench  of  this Court in Krishnan Vs.
\nGovernment Of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2001 (4) CTC 108 has no  application  to
\nthe facts  of the case and it is clearly distinguishable.  That apart, no such
\ncontention has been advanced, nor such an averment has been  set  out  in  the
\naffidavit  to  call upon the respondents to controvert the contention which is
\nsought to be made out at the time of hearing.  Further, it is seen that in the
\npresent case all the land owners or the petitioners  in  this  batch  of  writ
\npetitions  have  submitted  their  objections  well  within  time,  they  were
\nreceived, they have been afforded opportunity during Section  5A  enquiry  and
\nthereafter only  Section 6 Declarations were issued.  Therefore in any view of
\nthe matter, the first contention advance cannot be sustained and it fails.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Nextly, it is contended by Mr.M.M.Sundaresh, learned counsel  for
\nthe petitioners in this batch of writ petitions that the acquisition is liable
\nto  be  quashed  in view of the objections raised by the petitioners have been
\nrejected mechanically without application of mind and  5.A  Proceedings  would
\ndisclose  that  neither  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  had  adverted to the
\nobjections,  nor  considered  the   objections   or   remarks,   but   without
\nconsideration  has  forwarded  his  report  mechanically and this vitiates the
\nacquisition.  In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners  relied
\nupon a  pronouncement  of  this  court  in  Thiruvengadam  Vs.    Secretary to
\nGovernment, Housing  Department,  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  9  others,
\nreported  in  197  (II)  CTC  323 as well as a Division Bench Judgment of this
\ncourt in Tamil  Nadu  Real  Estates  Ltd.    Vs.    Special  Tahsildar,  (Land
\nAcquisition) and  others,  reported  in 2002 (1) L.W.  Page 37 (D.B) which has
\nbeen confirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court  in  Special  Leave  to
\nAppeal (Civil) No.19168 of 2001 dated 13.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   Mr.M.M.Sundaresh,  learned  counsel  referred  to the objections
\nraised as well as the remarks received and the 5A.  Enquiry conducted  by  the
\nLand Acquisition  Officer.    In  this  batch  of  writ petitions, there is no
\ncontroversy that the 5.A.   Enquiry  report  is  identical  in  all  the  writ
\npetitions.   It  is  useful to extract the very report of the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer as much reliance is  placed  on  the  report  submitted  by  the  Land
\nAcquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
        “3)     The  enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was
\nconducted on 9.3.2000, 16.6.2000 and 25.7.2000 after serving necessary notices
\nprescribed under the rules on the Land Owners and other interested persons  in
\nthe land.   During  the  5.A.   Enquiry, Objection Petitions were filed by the
\nLand Owners and other interested persons  in  the  land.    The  gist  of  the
\nobjections raised at the time of 5.A enquiry along with objection petitions in
\noriginal  was  sent  to  the  requisition body (i.e) Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
\nChennai-35, for their opinion and remarks in this office letters third  cited.
\nThe  Tamil  Nadu  Housing Board in their letters fourth cited informed to over
\nrule all the objections raised during 5.A enquiry as all  the  lands  notified
\nfor  acquisition  are  essentially  required  for  housing  schemes absolutely
\ncomprehensive scheme and to proceed further with land acquisition proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        4)      The opinion of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board  was  communicated
\nto  the  objectors  in this office Rc.6895\/99\/E1, dated 16.10.2000 and further
\nenquiry to her any further objections on the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Housing
\nBoard, as provided under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act  was  conducted
\non 1.11.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        5)  During  the  enquriy  under rule 3(b) some land owners filed their
\nobjections on the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing  Board.    The  objections
\nreceived  at  the  time  of  3(b)  enquriy and the substance of the objections
\nexpressed during 5(A) enquiry are same.\n<\/p>\n
        6) Therefore, I recommend to over  rule  all  the  objections  and  to
\ndecide to submit Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
\nin respect of the notified lands to Government for approval and publication in
\nthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.”\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Identical is the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer
\nrecommending to overrule the objections in all the Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   A  perusal  of  the  above  extracted  portion  of the report in
\nparticular paragraphs 4 and 5 would show that the objections has neither  been
\nconsidered,  nor  remarks  of  the  requisitioning  body  has been accepted to
\noverrule the objections.  But on the other hand, what has been extracted above
\nwould show that there was an enquiry to hear objections and an  enquiry  under
\nRule  3(b)  was  conducted  and  during  the  enquiry the same objections were
\nraised.  Therefore, according to the learned counsel there is  no  application
\nof  mind  on  the  part  of  the  Land Acquisition Officer with respect to the
\nobjections  raised  in  detail  as  well  as  the  remarks  submitted  by  the
\nrequisitioning body  and  totally  there  is  no application of mind.  In this
\nrespect, much reliance is placed upon the  Division  Bench  judgment  of  this
\ncourt  as  affirmed  by  the  Supreme Court in the Special Leave Appeal, cited
\nsupra.  In Thiruvengadam Vs.  Secretary  to  Government,  Houding  Department,
\nGovt., of Tamil Nadu reported in 1997 (II) CTC 323, sitting Single, this court
\nhad  occasion  to  consider  an  identical  contention and while following the
\npronouncement of earlier Division Bench judgment of this  court  in  Ramanujam
\nVs.   Collector of Madras (1994 WLR 3 26) this court held that it is essential
\non the part of  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  to  apply  his  mind  to  the
\nobjections  raised  and  if there is no application of mind at all by the Land
\nAcquisition Officer  while  forwarding  his  report,  the  acquisition  stands
\nvitiated.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  In  Tamil  Nadu  Real Estates Ltd., Vs.  Special Tahsildar (L.A),
\nreported in 2002 (1) L.W.37 (D.B), a Division Bench of this Court (to which  I
\nam  a party) while referring to the earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court
\nin Shyam Nandan Prasad & others V.  State of Bihar & others, reported in  1993
\n(4) SCC 255, held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “48.   It  is  obligatory  for  the land acquisition officer to make a
\nreport or recommendation and forward the same to the  appropriate  Government.
\nIt is for the Government to accept the report or otherwise consider the entire
\nmatter  and  thereafter  either  make  a  declaration  or  decline  to  make a
\ndeclaration after examining the report and the papers forwarded  therewith  by
\nthe land acquisition officer.  Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the land
\nacquisition  officer  to  consider the objection as well as the remarks of the
\nrequisitioning body and make his independent assessment and submit his  report
\nto  the  State  Government  containing  his recommendations on the objections.
\nWhile making such recommendations, the land acquisition officer has to  assess
\nthe   materials   placed  before  him  by  the  land  owner  as  well  as  the
\nrequisitioning authority, and if the  land  acquisition  officer  without  his
\nindependent  assessment  or  failed  to  consider  but abdicate himself to the
\nremarks submitted by the requisitioning authority and forwards the  report  to
\nthe  Government,  it  is  not  a  report  in the eye of law and, consequently,
\nSection 5A proceedings stands vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
Xx              xx              xx              xx              xx\n<\/p>\n
50.  On a reading of the report it is clear that the land acquisition  officer
\nwithout  independently  assessing the merits of the objections and the remarks
\nforwarded by  the  requisitioning  authority  had  merely  reported  that  the
\nChairman,  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board  over  ruled the objections of the land
\nowners and had instructed the land  acquisition  officer  to  send  the  Draft
\nDeclaration to  the  Government  for approval.  It is rightly pointed out that
\nthe land acquisition officer had merely abdicated his functions enjoined  upon
\nhim  under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5A and had submitted himself to the
\ndictation of the requisitioning body, namely, The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing
\nBoard.  The report in no  way  discloses  the  assessment  of  the  objections
\nvis-a-vis  the  remarks  of  the  requisitioning  body by the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer and, thereafter  forwarding  his  recommendations  on  the  objections
\ntogether  with  the  record  of  the  proceedings,  which  alone  would  be in
\nconformity with sub-section (2) of  Section  5A.    In  this  case,  the  land
\nacquisition  officer’s  recommendation or report is not a report at all on the
\nobjections submitted by the land owners,  but  it  is  an  abdication  of  his
\nreporting  or  recommendation  to  the  dictation  of the requisitioning body,
\nnamely, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board.\n<\/p>\n
51.  When the statutory provisions, namely,  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  5A
\nrequires the land acquisition officer to consider the objection and submit his
\nrecommendation  on the objections, the land acquisition officer is expected to
\nassess the objections independently and  objectively  with  reference  to  the
\nremarks  received  from  the  requisitioning  body,  which alone would satisfy
\nsub-section (2) of Section 5A.  Any deviation would vitiate the report and  it
\nis not  a  report  in  the  eye  of law.  The decision of the Government under
\nSection 5A (2) is final and normally this Court would not interfere  with  the
\nrecommendations of the land acquisition officer, if in the recommendations the
\nobjections  are  fully  considered  by  the land acquisition officer and after
\ngiving  reasonable  opportunity  to  the  objectors   and,   thereafter,   the
\nrecommendations were  made.  A perusal of Section 5A enquiry report would show
\nthat in objections 1 and 2, the enquiry officer had merely set
\nout the name of the owner and in respect of his survey number or  sub-division
\nand their  gist  of  objections.  Only in the last portion, which is extracted
\nabove, is his report if at all.\n<\/p>\n
52.  When the objections were not duly  considered  by  the  land  acquisition
\nofficer  objectively or that the objections were disregarded and that the land
\nacquisition officer abdicated his recommendations  to  the  dictation  of  the
\nrequisitioning  body,  which  recommendations  not  being  in  conformity with
\nSection 5A(2), is no report at all as there is no  objective  assessment  with
\nrespect  to  the  objections vis-a-vis the remarks of the requisitioning body,
\nwho has proposed the acquisition, then in  the  eye  of  law  there  being  no
\nrecommendation  and  objections  not having been referred to or adverted to or
\nconsidered by the  land  acquisition  officer  in  the  manner  prescribed  by
\nSub-section (2)  of Section 5 A.  Hence we hold that the report of the enquiry
\nofficer stands vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
53.  As there is a patent failure to consider the objections  put  forward  by
\nthe  land  owners,  as  there  is  no independent assessment of the objections
\nvis-a-vis the remarks submitted by the requisitioning body  and  as  the  land
\nacquisition  officer had submitted to the dictation of the requisitioning body
\nwithout reference to the objections, in law the action of the
\nland acquisition officer in forwarding his report recommending the acquisition
\nis not in conformity with Section 5A (2) and there is no valid report  in  the
\neye of  law.    Therefore,  there  cannot  be  a  valid  declaration  and  the
\ndeclaration issued under Section 6 in this respect is liable to be quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The above Division Bench Judgment of this Court has been affirmed
\nby the Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.19168 of 2001 (Special
\nTahsildar Vs.   Tamil  Nadu  Real  Estates  Ltd.,)  dated  13.9.2002.    Their
\nLordships  of  the  Supreme  Court  while  confirming the said judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of this Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        “It appears from the record that the High Court has quashed Section  6
\nNotification  on  the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice.
\nThe High Court has also quashed Section 4(1) Notification  for  the  following
\nreasons:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Further,  in  this case, declaration under Section 6 has been made on<\/p>\n
the last date.  Hence, practically, there could be no fresh  declaration  even
\nif  the  matter  is  remitted  back to the respondents for an enquiry and as a
\nconsequence Section 4(1) Notification also will not survive”.\n<\/p>\n
        The  observation  with  respect  to  Section  4(1)   Notification   is
\nunexceptionable  in  view  of  the law laid down in the recent decision of the
\nConstitution Bench; we do not see any reason or justification for interference
\nunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India.  As such, this  Special  Leave
\nPetition is dismissed.”.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   In  the light of the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this
\nCourt as affirmed by the Supreme Court, the second contention advanced by  the
\ncounsel  for  the  petitioners  on  the  face  of report submitted by the Land
\nAcquisition Officer deserves to  be  sustained  and  more  so  when  the  Land
\nAcquisition  Officer  has  neither  applied  his  mind,  nor  referred  to the
\nobjections, nor  considered  the  objections  or  the  remarks  nor  made  his
\nindependent   assessment   submitting  his  report  to  the  State  Government
\ncontaining his recommendations.  The Division Bench judgment of this court  is
\ndirectly on the point and binding on this court.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   In the circumstances, the second contention advanced deserves to
\nbe sustained.  There is no quarrel that the reports of  the  Land  Acquisition
\nOfficer  in  this  batch  of Writ Petitions are identical in all respects with
\nrespect to the objections submitted and therefore on  the  second  contention,
\nthe acquisition  is  liable  to  be  quashed.    In  this  case,  Section 4(1)
\nNotifications were made on 21.10.1999 or 27.10.1999 or 26.10.1999 or  31.8.199
\nand  therefore in these cases more than three years have elapsed from the date
\nof 4(1) Notification and therefore,  this  court  will  not  be  justified  in
\nremanding the matter for fresh enquiry under section 5.A also.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   In  the circumstances, this batch of writ petitions are allowed,
\nacquisition proceedings are quashed.  It is well open to  the  respondents  to
\nproceed afresh  if  they so decide.  Consequently, all the connected WPMPs and
\nWVMPs are closed.  No cost.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:Yes
\nIndex:Yes<\/p>\n
gkv<\/p>\n
Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Govt.,
\nGovt., of Tamil Nadu,
\nHousing and Development Department,
\nSecretariat, Chennai-9<\/p>\n
2.  The Special Tahsildar
\n(Land Acquisition)
\nUnit IV, TNHB Schemes,
\nNandanam, Chennai-35<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION No. 38690 of 2002 and W.P.Nos. 38721 to 38727, 38728, 38729, 38731, 387 32, 38733, 38734, 38735, and 38736 of 2002, 38691 to 38700, 38712, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAyyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3739,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003"},"wordCount":3739,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003","name":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T03:38:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayyavu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-13-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ayyavu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}