MALIKARJUNA RAO; SOUNDARAM RAO; CHITRA RANGANATHAN; LATA PRAMOD KAREKAR AND GOUTAM RAO Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADI-DRAVIDA AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI-DRAVIDA WELFARE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' land in G.O.Ms.No.669 Adi Dravida Tribal Welfare, dated 1.10.1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 11.3.1994 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) According to the first petitioner, he and his brother were co-owners of the property and subsequent to the demise of his brother Venkat Rao, the property is vested on his legal heirs. The Government of India notified for acquisition of the property for provision of house sites to Adi Dravida of Sedaarampattu village, Polur Taluk. Notice was issued in the Government Gazette on 10.11.1993 and the substance was published in two Tamil Dailies namely, Kumari Murasu and Viduthalai on 11.11.1993. The publication in the village has not also been correctly done. It is further stated that notice under Section 5A of the Act was issued under form No.3-A and it does not specify the place where the enquiry was to be conducted and the first petitioner was filing a xerox copy of the notice. Though he was residing at Delhi and his brother was in U.S.A., there was no attempt to serve any notice either on the petitioner personally, but it was served on one Krishnamurthi. The Tahsildar is fully aware of his residence at New Delhi. But no efforts were taken to serve notice on the petitioner. However, on coming to know the acquisition proceedings, the first petitioner contacted N.R. Srinivasan, Advocate and both of them went to the Tahsildar's office to hand over the objection. They were told that the notice of hearing will be sent to them and that at that point of time representation may be made. However, by way of abundant caution, the first petitioner has dispatched his written objections. It is not necessary to extract contents of the objections having regard to the scope of the disposal of the writ petition. The first petitioner further submits that he was informed that his objections were rejected, but the same had not been communicated to the first petitioner or his brother. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act appears to be published in the Gazette on 15.3.1994 and the substance in Thinathoodhu and Kumari Murasu on 16.3.1994. He was called upon to participate in an award enquiry and the said letter was received by him on 4.4.1994 though the enquiry was posted to 28.3.1994. Notice itself had been dispatched only on 26.3.1994 addressed to one C.V. Krishnamurthy, Vellore. The said notice had been redirected from Vellore to the first petitioner's address at Delhi which was received on 4.4.1994. Even without his presence and without proper notice the award appears to have passed on 28.3.1994 itself.

(3.) The first petitioner would contend that the entire proceedings are vitiated by abuse of powers by the second respondent who had conducted the enquiry flouting of norms and elementary principles governing of acquisition of property. It is further stated that the Tamil Nadu Rules have not been properly complied with especially Rule 4 dealing with calling for and dealing with the objections.