K.NATARAJAN Vs. GOVT., OF PUDUCHERRY
LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-142
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 29,2016

K.NATARAJAN Appellant
VERSUS
Govt., Of Puducherry Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are land owners have challenged the la
(2.)The petitioners claiming themselves to be agriculturists owning meagre extent of land are aggrieved by the impugned acquisition proceedings. The undisputed facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 07.06.2011 and the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with invoking the urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.07.2011.
(3.)The challenge to the impugned land acquisition proceedings are on the following grounds as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(i) that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette only on 02.08.2011, and prior to that the notification was published in the newspapers and this is not in accordance with the procedure under Section 4(1) of the Act;

(ii) likewise the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette only on 10.08.2011, whereas it was published in the newspapers on 06.08.2011;

(iii) that prior approval of the Government under Section 3(7)(vi) was not obtained for the proposed acquisition, the names of the petitioners, who are the owners of the property were not included in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, instead the names of the dead persons and predecessors in title were mentioned;

(iv) the invoking emergency power under Section 17 of the Act by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was unnecessary;

(v) the willingness of the petitioners to receive higher compensation will not constitute estoppel nor can it operate as a bar for filing the Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings;

(vi) the entire land acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act, as the petitioners continue to be in possession of the lands in question and compensation amount has not be paid.

(vii) in support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad and Anr., vs. Raja Ram, Jaiswal reported in (1985) 3 SCC 1; Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur vs. Bheru Lal and Ors., reported in 2003 (1) CTC 59; Radhy Shyam (Dead) through Lrs., and Anr., vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 553; Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr., vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in 2014 (1) CTC 755.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.