1. Ambrose Nadar and 2. Jesuadimal Nadachi vs State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagar coil and Nagarcoil Cooperative Housing Society, Nagarcoil

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The proceedings challenged are under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' The purpose of acquisition is the formation of an approach road. Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners, would urge three points coveting admission of this writ petition. Firstly, learned counsel would submit that even prior to the publication of the notification under S.4 (1) of the Act, the petitioners were asked to sell the lands and they declined and only thereafter, the acquisition proceedings have been taken. From this, it is not possible to hold that the acquisition proceedings themselves are incompetent. Secondly, learned counsel would submit that the local publication of the substance of the notification under S.4 (1) of the Act was not made either simultaneously or contemporaneously. It is stated in ground No. (i) in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the local publication was made after a period of nearly one month after the notification under S.4 (1) of the Act. Apart from this, no prejudice is pleaded on account of this alleged time lapse. No specific date is given. Whatever that be, the lapse of time and interval are not much so as to hold that the provisions of the statute were not duly satisfied. Certainly, the parties cannot be stated to have been in a state of uncertainly for an unduly by long time. Thirdly, learned counsel would contend that the State has made only a token contribution of Rs. 0.05 p. The acquisition is to serve a public purpose, to wit, for the formation of an approach road to a residential colony. Merely because the contribution made out of public revenue is meager or even token in character, that cannot be taken exception to state that the provisions have not been satisfied. It would suffice the purpose if reference is made to the pronouncement of this Court in Yogyam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Housing Dept., Madras and another W.P. 470 to 472 of 1979 order dated 13th October, 1981, I am not able to appreciate and sustain any of the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.