MUTHUKARUPPAN Vs. STALE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) I have heard Mr.K.Govindarajan for petitioners and Mr.V.P.Sengottuvelan for respondents. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.(3-D) 175, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 11.2.1991 and Declaration under Sec.6 issued in G.O.(3-D) No.288, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.4.1992.

(3.) THE respondents have also filed a counter-affidavit. It is seen from para.2 of page.2 of the counter-affidavit sworn to by the Special Tahsil-dar (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Tiruppur, who is well acquainted with the facts of the case from the records that the notification under Sec.4(l) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, on 18.3.1991 and in the two Tamil dailies, viz., "Pirpagal" on 14.3.1991 and "Malai Murasu" on 14.3.1991 and the substance of the Notification was published in the locality on 23.4.1991. As rightly held by my learned Brother K.S.Bakthavatsalam, J., in the judgment above referred, the procedure followed by the respondents in this case, cannot be sustained. It is useful to reproduce the relevant passage from the judgment of my learned Brother K.S.Bakthavatsalam, J., in M.Rajagopal and others v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu and another, (1992)2 M.L.J. 404, which runs thus: