M RAMASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is said to have purchased Survey no. 1221-A measuring 1. 72 1/2 acres out of a total extent of 3. 45 acres onl7. 11. 1947under registered sale deed. THE patta for the land is said to stand in the joint names of three others. After the purchase, the land stands registered in the joint names of (1) Perumal Pillai and his two sons, viz. , rengasamy Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai along with the name of the first petitioner. THE second petitioner is said to be the widow of the said rengaswamy Pillai, who dated on 10. 8. 1987. THE first respondent is said to have issued a notification under Sec. 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the'act') on 3. 12. 1987 in G. O. Ms. (Permanent)No. 2505 proposing to acquire to total extent of 5. 07 acres comprised in Survey nos. l221/a and 1221/b, on the ground that the same is required for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. THE name of the first petitioner does not find a place in the 4 (1) notification. THE first petitioner had not received any notice for the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act. THE first petitioner, however, issued a Lawyer's novice on 16. 3. 1966 to both the respondents, claiming title to the property. THE respondents did not send any reply. On 5. 3. 1989, the petitioners had received a notice under Secs. 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, calling upon them to attend to an enquiry on 14. 3. 1989 on which date, the petitioners did appear and objected to the very acquisition itself. THE present writ petition is, to quash the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the act issued in G. O. Ms. (Permanent) No. 2505, dated 3. 12. 1987 and the declaration made under Sec. 5 of the Act in G. O. Ms. No. 1890 (Social Welfare), dated 27. 7. 1988.

(2.) THE grounds taken in the writ petition and as elaborated by learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (1) THE notification and declaration are illegal because they fail to contain the name of the first petitioner, even though his name has been registered in the village Accounts, (2) THE petitioners did not have any opportunity to take part in the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act, because of the failure, to give notice under the Rules framed under Sec. 55 of the Act. (3) Notwithstanding the Lawyer's notice, dated 16. 3. 1988, the declaration made under Sec. 6 of the Act also did not contain the name of the petitioners. (4) THE purpose of acquisition has not been clearly spelt out in the notification because it has not stated as x> which of the Adi Dravidars require provision of house sites.

(3.) EVEN so, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that inasmuch as the entire acquisition proceedings are null and void, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of laches, learned counsel for the petitioner goes to the extent of contending that there was no valid acquisition proceedings at all in so far as the first petitioner is concerned because his name did not find a place in the notification issued under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act. But, it must be remembered that the first petitioner's name finds a place in the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act and the petitioners have now came forward only to challenge the notification under Sec. 4 (l) of the Act and the declaration made under Sec. 6 of the Act.