- (1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.820, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1982 and G.O.Ms.No.843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985 and quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioner's land in S.F.Nos.345/2, 346/2 and 347/2 of the extent of 3 acres and 21.5 cents in THElungupalayam Village, Coimbatore District.
(2.) THE petitioner is Ms.Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited. THE case of the petitioner is that it owns an extent of 3 acres and 21.5 cents in S.F.Nos.345/2, 346/2 and 347/2. In S.F.No.345/2 it owns an .LH 10 extent of 60.5 cents, in S.F.No.346/2 it owns an extent of 1.15 acres and in S.F.No.347/2, it owns an extent of 1.46 acres. THE petitioner has purchased the land by a sale deed dated 17.1.1964. It is averred in the writ petition that by G.O.Ms.No.820, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1982, the Government proposed to acquire a total extent of 43.73 acres for the purpose of the formation of A.A.Nagar Scheme. THE notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 1.8.1982. Though the notification was published on 1.8.1982, the notice in Form No.3-A was received by the petitioner on 9.4.1984. In the notice the name of the owner of the land was mentioned as M.Jambunathan even though M/s.Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited was the actual owner. On 16.4.1984 the petitioner has informed the second respondent stating that similar reference was received on 8.3.1984 and he has already filed his objections on 4.3.1984. THE petitioner has also filed a copy of the sale deed on 28.3.1984. In the objections, he has stated that Survey Number and extent given in the notice was not correct and that the name of the owner was also not correct. He has further stated that as an individual he has owned only 5 cents and M/s.Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited owned a total extent of 3.21.5 acres in S.F.Nos.345/2, 346/2 and 347/2. An enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was fixed on 30.4.1984. On 24.3.1984, the petitioner submitted its objections. THE petitioner has filed its objections under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules. THE second respondent has forwarded the objections of the petitioner to the third respondent on 3.5.1984 after the enquiry was held on 30.4.1984. THE third respondent has submitted its remarks to the objections by its letter dated 26.6.1984. THE petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the remarks. A declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was issued by G.O.Ms.No.843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985. THE same was published in the Government Gazette on 26.8.1985, in an English daily on 27.8.1985, in a Tamil daily on 28.8.1985 and in the locality on 30.8.1985. It is also averred in the writ petition that notice under Sec.9(3) of the Act was issued on 14.12.1985. Another notice was issued on 5.2.1987 to appear for the award enquiry on 9.3.1987. Another notice dated 4.12.1988 was issued to appear for an enquiry on 12.1.1989. Aggrieved by the non-mentioning of the name of the owner and also for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules and the issuance of the notice of the award on different dates and on other grounds, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for quashing of the land acquisition proceedings. In this case, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter, but a pro forma has been filed signed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Tahsildar, Housing Scheme I, Coimbatore dated 9.9.1998. Even though the Government Advocate has filed the records, the records are not clear and the case has to be decided on the pro forma filed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 9.9.1998. The pro forma is treated as the part of the court records. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was issued by G.O.Ms.No.820, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1982. The notice in Form 3-A was issued by the second respondent on 7.4.1984. In the said notice, the name of the owner was mentioned as Shri M.Jambunathan even though the actual owner is M/s.Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited. The petitioner seems to have written a letter on 16.4.1984 to the second respondent stating that a similar reference dated 8.3.1984 had been received and he has already filed his objections on 4.3.1984. He has also filed a copy of the sale deed on 28.3.1984. The objections filed by the petitioner was forwarded to the third respondent on 3.5.1984 i.e., after enquiry under Sec.5-A was held on 30.4.1984. It has been argued that the third respondent has forwarded his remarks on 26.6.1984. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of meeting the remarks of the third respondent. Basing on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the enquiry held under Sec.5-A of the Act was in flagrant violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules. He has argued that the authorities have not taken into consideration the non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules and the authorities have not chosen to conduct the fresh enquiry under Sec.5-A and has chosen to issue declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985. He has argued that the respondents have issued notice under Sec.9(3) on different dates namely 14.12.1985, 5.2.1987, 9.3.1987, 14.12.1988 and the last one being 9.12.1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the pro forma submitted by the Government Advocate signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the date of award enquiry was shown as 12.1.1989 whereas the award was passed on 27.8.1987 in Award No.7 of 1987. Notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 were shown to be issued on 14.12.1988. Basing on the above, he has argued that even assuming that the award was passed on 27.8.1987 in Award No.7 of 1987, as per the statement of the respondents, notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 were issued on 14.12.1988. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that passing of the award itself is bad as the respondents have failed to issue notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 as on the date of passing of the award. From the above it is very clear that the enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989 and notices under Secs.9(3) and 10 were issued on 14.12.1988 and the award was passed on 27.8.1987. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the authorities have messed up the entire proceedings and the issuance of the enquiry notice in the year 1989 was an after-thought as the award was passed in the year 1987. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed for the non-compliance of Rule 3 which is mandatory and notice under Sec.9(3) was served after the award was passed. In this case, the fact remains that even though M/s.Jamburagavan and Company Private Limited is the owner by way of purchase, Rule 3(b) notices were issued to M.Jambunathan for which the petitioner has already intimated to the second respondent stating the name of the actual owner. Even though the petitioner herein has filed his objections to Rule 3(6) notice, the remarks were forwarded to the third respondent only on 30.5.1984 i.e., after conducting enquiry under Sec.5-A on 30.4.1984. The same has not been disputed by the respondents. The third respondent has forwarded his remarks on 26.6.1984 after enquiry under Sec.5-A was over. The above facts show that the authorities have not complied with the provisions of Rule 3(b). In this context it is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others Ramanujam v. Collector, Madras and two others , 1994 Writ L.R. 326 held that the mandatory Rule 3(b) had been violated and Sec.5-A enquiry was vitiated for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 3(b) as well as the principles of natural justice. It was held in Kannammal (deceased) V.N.Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Kannammal (deceased) V.N.Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu and others Kannammal (deceased) V.N.Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu and others , 1990 Writ L.R. 439 that the remarks of the requisitioning authority should be available to the owner/claimant whose land is acquired at the time of the enquiry under Sec.5-A. As the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in that case had been communicated to the petitioners therein nearly two years after the enquiry under Sec.5-A, it was held that it vitiated the entire enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. In Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another , 1987 Writ L.R. 182 Nainar Sundaram, J. as he then was, held that if remarks of the requisitioning body had not been obtained when the enquiry under Sec.5-A was held, much less furnished to the owner of the land, it would vitiate the proceedings. To the same effect, the following decisions are: (1) C.Ponnusamy and 62 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu C.Ponnusamy and 62 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu C.Ponnusamy and 62 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu , (1997)1 C.T.C. 212 (2) Balkis Ammal by power of Attorney Agent K.P.M. Abdul Gafar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another Balkis Ammal by power of Attorney Agent K.P.M. Abdul Gafar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another Balkis Ammal by power of Attorney Agent K.P.M. Abdul Gafar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and another , (1997)1 C.T.C. 427 (3) Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another , (1997)3 C.T.C. 213 and also the unreported decision in W.P.Nos.3969 and 3976 of 1991, dated 16.4.1998. In view of the above decisions, it could be held that as the remarks of the requisitioning body was not made available to the owner/;claimant whose lands were acquired at the time of enquiry under Sec.5-A, it has to be held that the requirements of Rule 3(b) have not been complied with. Hence, the enquiry under Sec.5-A is vitiated. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to passing of the award. In this case, as per the pro forma filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the award in No.7 of 1987 seems to have been passed on 20.7.1987. The award notice seems to have been issued on 14.12.1988. The date for the enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989. It is not made clear by the respondents counsel how the award was passed in the year 1987 without the notice being issued under Secs.9 and 10 of the Act. Even assuming that notices were issued, they were issued after the passing of the award and the enquiry was fixed on 12.1.1989. In such a case, in view of the non-compliance of the provisions relating to passing of the award and as there was no rebuttal contention from the respondents, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the award has been passed without issuing the notice under Sec.9(3) of the Act. In view of the above, it has to be held that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Act. The enquiry under Sec.5-A is held to be bad. Notification issued under Sec.6 is also liable to be quashed. The award itself is liable to be quashed for the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. For the reasons stated above, the land acquisition proceedings including the award are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.;