P. SATHASIVAM, J. - (1.)AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge dated 27.04.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 5322 of 1993, the writ petitioners/land owners-persons interested, filed the above appeal.
(2.)PENDING appeal, first appellant V. Palanisamy died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 6 to 8 by order dated 23.08.2005 made in WAMP. No. 2980 of 2005. One R. Kuppusamy, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Sangam, Coimbatore was also impleaded as third respondent as per order dated 19.01.2005 made in WAMP. No. 8032 of 2004.
For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

According to the petitioners, all of them own 2.78 acres of lands in S.F. No. 344/part, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk, Coimbatore by virtue of purchase under various sale deeds dated 19.07.1990. They joined together and decided to lay out the said 2.78 acres into house sites and submitted necessary application dated 16.08.1990 to the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation. The Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Coimbatore, in his proceedings dated 31.10.1990, issued a certificate to the effect that the said lands are agricultural lands, not attracted by Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. They also obtained certificate from the Special Tahsildar (LA) Housing Scheme III, Coimbatore to the effect that in respect of S.F. No. 344/part of Vilankurichi Village, no notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been published. After verifying all the certificates, the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, directed the parties to remit a sum of Rs. 22,300/- towards betterment charges for laying out the lands. They paid the said sum on 04.06.1991. The Local Planning Authority, Coimbatore, viz., District Collector had also recommended for the grant of approval to lay out the said lands. The petitioners also paid Rs. 2,500/- towards service charges to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras -2. Finally, the Director of Town and Country Planning by its proceedings dated 21.08.1991, granted the approval for the lay out plan submitted by the petitioners in respect of the said lands.

While so, during first week of November, 1991, the original owners of the said lands informed the petitioners that an extent of 3.50 acres in S.F. No. 344/part of Vilankurichi village which includes the above said lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and they were called upon to file their objections if any before the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their objections dated 13.11.1991 to the second respondent. Thereafter, they came to know that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Part II-Section 2(Supplement) of Tamil Nadu Government gazette dated 28.08.1991 to the effect that an extent of 3.50 acres of lands in S.F. No. 344/part of Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk is needed for a public purpose to wit, for providing house sites to the Adi Draviders, who are residing in and around Vilankurichi Village and the second respondent was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5A of the Act.

Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that there was no proper publication in the locality. He also contended that in spite of objections by the petitioners, the second respondent has not conducted further enquiry, which is in violation of Rule 4(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. Finally, he submitted that the petitioners had sold the approved plots to Labourers of Coimbatore Shri Ranga Villas Spinning and Weaving Mills for putting up construction for their shelters, and the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired was also for providing house sites to Harijans, and since both are public purposes, the land acquisition proceedings are liable to be dropped.

(3.)MR. P. Wilson, learned Special Government Pleader, by placing records met all the contentions and submitted that there is no valid ground for interference with the order of the learned single Judge, and consequently, prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
We have carefully considered the materials placed and rival contentions.

With regard to first contention regarding publication of Section 4(1) notification in the locality, in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government before the learned single Judge, it is stated that S. 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government gazette dated 28.08.1991, in news dailies (i) Namadhu M.G.R. On 30.08.1991; and (ii) 30.08.1991; and in locality on 30.08.1991. In view of the specific information in the form of counter affidavit by the higher official of the Government and in the absence of reply affidavit controverting the said claim, we have no other option except to reject the said contention. It is seen that before the learned single Judge an argument was advanced that in the absence of specific date when the tom tom was made in the locality, it cannot be construed that there was proper local publication. The learned Judge, after finding from the records and the counter affidavit that publication was effected in the locality and the same was done properly and signatures of witnesses had been obtained and thereafter declaration was made on 22.09.1992, i.e., within a period of one year from 30.08.1991, rejected the said contention. On perusal of the specific averments in the counter affidavit and the records, we concur with the factual conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge and reject the above contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.