A. Logammal vs Secretary to Government of India and Others

S. Ramalingam, J.—The petitioner''s lands of about 700 sq.ft. situate in R.S.No:1004/11 part were notified under Central Act I of 1894 for

acquisition for a project called Mass Rapid Transit System connecting Madras Beach and Luz. The notification u/s 4(1) was published in the

gazette on 12.2.1986 and the declaration u/s 6 was published on 28.3.1987 in the gazette. Thereafter, an inquiry under Sections 9(3) and 10 of

the Act was held, in which the petitioner participated. The award was made on 31.3.1989.

The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the notification u/s 4(1) and also declaration u/s 6 in respect of the petitioner''s

land and building and to quash the same.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges three contentions. The first is that there was a delay in the publication of the declaration u/s 6 and the

delay is fatal. He would submit that as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, a period of one year is available from the date of

4(1) notification to publish the declaration u/s 6 and insofar as in the instant case, the notification was on 12.2.1986, the declaration made beyond

the period of one year on 28.3.1987 is vitiated. In the same lines, he would contend that the declaration u/s 6 having been made on 28.3.1987, the

award should have been made within two years thereof and since the award was made only on 31.3.1989, the award is belated and that delay

would nullify the entire acquisition proceedings. Thirdly, it is submitted that at the inquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, the objections filed by the petitioner

were merely forwarded to the requisitioning department and they had disposed of the objections in a routine manner and after the remarks from the

requisitioning body were received by the Land Acquisition Officer, no further inquiry was conducted and therefore, Section 5-A inquiry was not in

compliance with the Act. In this connection, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in A. Sankarasadasivam and Another Vs. A.

Kumaravel and Others, .

In answer, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that none of the above objections of the petitioner is sustainable. From

the records, he is able to show that though the notification u/s 4(1) was gazetted on 12.2.1986, the substance of the notification was published in

the Tamil Newspaper on 3.3.1986 and in The Hindu on 12.3.1986 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 4.4.1986.

Reckoning 4.4.1986 as the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1), the declaration made on 28.3.1987 is well within a period of one year.

So far as the award dated 31.3.1989 is concerned, from the records, the Additional Government Pleader is able to establish that the declaration

u/s 6 though Gazetted on 28.3.1987 was published in Tamil Newspaper on 30.3.1987 and News Today, an English Newspaper on the same day

and it was published in the locality on 1.4.1987. Reckoning the date of declaration u/s 6 as 1.4.1987, the award made on 31.3.1989 is well within

two years prescribed u/s 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, there is no delay which is fatal to the acquisition proceedings.

So far as the inquiry u/s 5-A of the Act is concerned, it is admitted by the petitioner that he was served with a notice under Rule 3 of the Rules

framed u/s 55 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating that he should submit his objections to the proposed acquisition within 15 days from the date

of service of the notice. It was indicated that any objection statement received after the due date would be summarily rejected. It was also

indicated that the objections received within the due date would be inquired into on 9.5.1986. Therefore, it follows that if the objection statement

had been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of service of notice under Rule 3, the inquiry was warranted into those

objections. The petitioner has not averred in his affidavit, the date on which he was served with the notice under Rule 3 nor has he stated

affirmatively that he has filed his objections within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Therefore, there is no proof to show that the

petitioner has filed his objections within the due date warranting a full-fledged inquiry u/s 5-A. Merely, because the petitioner participated in the

inquiry that was held on 9.5.1986 along with several other persons, it would not confer on the petitioner, a special right to question the legality of

the inquiry held u/s 5-A in the absence of any valid objection statement filed by the petitioner within the due date.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in

view of the pendency of this writ petition, his client has not sought for a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having regard to the facts

and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted four weeks'' time from this date to make an application to the Land Acquisition Officer for

a reference u/s 18 of the Act and when such an application is filed, it will be forwarded to the Sub Court to be decided on merits. No order as to

costs.