CHINNAYYA GOUNDER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- The petitioners are the owners of the properties in S.Nos.313/1, 313/2, 313/3, 313/4, 314/1 & 314/2 measuring 10.24 acres in Kalapatti village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 25.2.1994 was published in Gazette on 27.4.1994. Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.6.1995. The acquisition is challenged by raising several grounds, namely (1) declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made beyond the stipulated period of one year (2) notice under Section 5-A has not been served in accordance with Section 45 of the Act (3) there is violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules and report of the requisitioning authority has not been furnished. Apart from these technical grounds, it is also contended that acquisition is contrary to the policy of the Government and even though many of the constructed flats promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had remained unsold, mechanically without the application of mind, acquisition has been made.

(2.) Point No.1: There is no dispute that 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 27.4.1994 and was published in two newspapers on 28.4.1994. Section 6 declaration was made on 27.6.1995. In the format signed by the Tahsildar and produced in Court at the time of eharing, it had been shown as if locality publication had been made on 10.06.1994 which was obviously more than one year prior to the date of declaration under Section 6 subsequently however in the counter, which has been filed after several adjournments and after the matter has been heard, the respondents have come out with an assertion that the substance of the notification has been published in the locality on 30.6.1994, and therefore, declaration under Section 6 made on 27.6.1995 is within one year. The exact method of publication of the substance in the locality has not been indicated. It is not indicated as to whether it was published in the locality by beat of drums or by affixing in conspicuous places. The records, which have been produced belatedly, only show that the Format indicates that locality publication was made on 30.6.1994. The rule contemplates that publication of notification is to be made in convenient places and by affixture at the office of the Collector. But the records do not show the publication of 4(1) notification in the Notice Board of the Collector. Rule 2 of the Rules provides that the notice should be published in convenient places. There is no clear material on record to show that there has been such publication in convenient places. When the Gazette was published on 27.4.1994 and the newspaper publication was made on 28.4.1994, it defies logic and there is no reason as to whether the so called publication was made on 30.6.1994, after expiry of about two months. This unusual delay creates doubt as there was any locality publication on 30.6.1994 or such belated locality publication has been invented so as to bring the declaration within the prescribed period of limitation. This suspicion is further compounded by the fact that in the counter affidavit, details regarding locality publication have not been indicated and the records do not clearly indicate about the method of locality publication.

(3.) In 1993 WLR 324 (A. VEMBULI NAICKER v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS) it has been held that substance of the notification in the locality has to be published by beat of drums and by affixture in convenient places.