R DEVARAJAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, initially the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act bearing G.O.Ms.No.656, Housing Department, dated 27.4.1978 came to be challenged under various grounds. We need not refer to those grounds, since the learned counsel does not want to argue on the basis of those grounds. Ultimately, the learned counsel was permitted to raise additional grounds and it is only on that additional ground that the notification under Section 4 as also the notification under Section 6 is being challenged. Needless to mention that, to begin with the notification under section 6 was not a part of the record of this writ petition. It seems that since the learned counsel was permitted to raise the additional grounds challenging the Section 6 notification by making an amendment, the said notification alone is in challenge now. The only ground on which the section 6 notification is in challenge is that it is contrary to section 6 and more particularly to the second proviso thereof. Learned counsel points out that the public purpose stated in Section 4 notification is for housing accommodation under West Kovaipudur Neighbourhood scheme. He further points out that in Section 6 notification, the preamble of the notification is in the following terms:-

(2.) From this, the learned counsel develops his arguments that this land was being acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as it was the Tamil Nadu Housing Board which would have built the housing schemes contemplated under the public purpose. If that was so, according to the learned counsel, the compensation amount ought to have come from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which is declared to be a local authority under Section 158 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. He points out that since the declaration suggests that the entire compensation amount is to come from public revenue, the notification itself is defective, as according to him the compensation amount should not only have been coming from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, but it should have also been stated accordingly in the Section 6 notification, and since it is not so stated, the notification is defective and therefore this defect is fatal to the acquisition. Learned counsel very heavily relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered by their Lordships S.MOHAN AND S.RAMALINGAM, JJ. in W.A.No.831/1985 (K.SUNDERRAJ AND TWO OTHERS -VS- THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND TWO OTHERS).

(3.) As against this, the learned counsel for the Government opposes the claim and points out that firstly it is not essential that the money should have come from Tamil Nadu Housing Board because there is no reference to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at all either in the Section 4 notification or in the Section 6 notification. Learned Government Pleader also points out that there would be no question of finding fault with the Section 6 notification, as according to him, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that in that case it was clear that the land was being acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and in the present case there is nothing to indicate that way.