Agalaya Bhai vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Another

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to

the G.O. Ms. No. 956 Housing Department dated 7.6.1978 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 9.6.1978 insofar as it relates

to Plot No. 13, Bharathi Nagar, 101, Valasaravakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District and quash the same.

In the said Government Order dated 7.6.1978 which is being impugned in the above writ petition, the first respondent, by exercising his power

u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, declared that the petitioner''s land described above was needed for a public

purpose for the New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The admitted facts of the case are that the Government passed a G.O. Rt. No. 136,

Housing dated 14.5.1975 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire the land for an extent of 248.18 acres in the Valasaravakkam

Village for the New Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. An enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was conducted on 29.11.1975 after observing the usual

formalities and thereafter, a Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was passed by G.O.Ms.No, 956, Housing Department, dated 7.6.1978, which is being

impugned in the above writ petition. After serving the notices to the individuals as contemplated u/s 9(3) and 10 of the Act, an award enquiry was

conducted on 21.7.1986, 22.7.1986, 23.7.1986, 28.7.1987 and 19.9.1986.

Mr. T.L. Rammohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the impugned acquisition proceedings on the

ground that statutory notices contemplated u/s 4(1) and 5-A were not served on the petitioners before passing the Declaration 6 of the Act; nor

statutory notice contemplated u/s 9(4) was served on the petitioner before passing the award proceedings.

He further contends that assuming that the respondents have observed the formalities as contemplated under the said Section 4(1), 5-A and 9 of

the Act, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Pramela Rajaram and 6 others 1996

W.L.R. 761 wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:-

However, the respondents submitted that they obtained the plan sanctioned and proceeded with construction and completed the construction of

two houses, therefore the area covered by the buildings and the land appurtenant thereto for enjoyment of the houses may be directed to be

excluded from the acquisition, or, to recover the said portion of the land to the appellants, and relied on the decision rendered in a similar situation

in W.A. Nos. 971 to 975 of 1993 and 1405 of 1995.

Accordingly, it is open to the respondents 1 to 6 to make an appropriate application to the Housing Board and the State Government to consider

the request for reconveyance in conformity with the Resolution 67 of 1986 conformity with the Resolution 67 of 1986 dated 2.7.1986 passed by

the Housing Board, and in the case the respondents 1 to 6 satisfy the conditions laid down in the said Resolution, reconveyance of the area

covered by the Building and the necessary land appurtenant thereto for the enjoyment of the building may be reconvened

Mr. T.L. Rammohan, learned Senior Counsel further contends that in the instant case also, the petitioners purchased the property and after

obtaining permission from the local bodies, raised loan from the Government, and constructed houses for their own purpose.

The learned Government Advocate, making submissions on the strength of the counter affidavit that the respondents have observed all usual

formalities before passing the impugned declaration u/s 6 of the Act, is not in a position to explain to this Court why the relief granted by the

Division Bench in the above mentioned decision should not be extended to the petitioners who have raised the constructions after due sanction of

the plan by the authorities of the local bodies and after raising loan from the Government itself.

After anxious consideration of the contentions of both sides, I am obliged to direct the respondents to exclude the impugned land of the

petitioners from the acquisition proceedings on the request of the petitioner for reconveyance of the land, which may be made by the petitioner

within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, if the petitioner satisfies the conditions laid down by the Resolution No. 67 of 1986 of the

Housing Board. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However, no costs.