AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan, J.—At the instance of Madurai Municipal Corporation''s Resolution No. 336, dated 31st August, 1972, land acquisition proceedings for the acquisition of an extent of 484 sq. ft. N. T.S. No. 937/13-B of West Madurai Village, Madurai South-Taluk were initiated for the extension of Corporation School at North Anjmoola Street, Madurai. The draft Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was approved in G.O. Rt. No. 2420, Education Department, dated 9th November, 1975 and published as Notification 11-1 No. 5792 of 1973 in Supplement to Part II Section I at page 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, date 5th December, 1973. Notices u/s 5-A of the Act were published in the manne prescribed on 18th January, 1974 and 19th January, 1974 and served on the owner on 18th January, 1974. The enquiry was posted and conducted on 5th February, 1974. The owner Thira A. Nachi-appan Chettiar appeared for enquiry on 5th February, 1974 and filed an objection petition through his Advocate. The objections raised by the land owner were over-ruled by the Land Acquisition Officer, who submitted Draft Declaration for approval and Publication by the Government. The Draft Declaration was approved by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 343, Education, dated 20th February, 1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 12th March, 1975 as No. 10-A of Supplement to Fart II Section 2 pages 1 and 2. While the valuation proposals were pending approval, the post of Special Tahsildar (LA) Corporation Casts, Madurai and his staff were disbanded with effect from 10th January. 1976 A.N. and the residuary work relating to Corporation Cases was tagged with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (vide District Revenue Officer''s ROC. 80007/G/ 74/B2, dated 22nd April, 1976). The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai was appointed as the Land Acquisition officer for the cases in question as per Government Memo No. 4522, Rules B2/76-2, Education Department, dated 5th July 1976 and published as Notification No. 11(2) Education 3913/76 and Notification No. 11(2) EDTJ/3914/76 at page 6 of the Supplement to Part II Section of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 28th July, 1976. On receipt of orders from the Additional Collector, Madurai in his ROC. 80007/74/U1, dated 29th December, 1979 along with a copy of Board''s K. Dis. (I Spl.) 9891/78, dated 10th Novembers, 1079 further action was taken to fix the value of the land with the building under acquisition in consultation with the Tahsildar, Madurai, South. The valuation proposals submitted an 4th July, 1981 were approved in District Revenue Officer''s proceedings ROC. U1/89007/74, dated 3rd August, 1981. The cost of acquisition i.e., Rs. 5,337.20 was remitted by the Madurai Corporation and after adjusting the amount of compensation to the personal deposit account of Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai the Award enquiry was posted to l6th November, 1081. Notices under Sections 9(1)(10) and 9(3)(10) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 17th October 1981 firing the land owner Thiru A.K. Nachiappan Chettiar to appear for enquiry on 16th November, 1981 in this office. The notice u/s 9(1) and (10) was served on Thiru N.S. Balasubramanian on 29th October, 1981. Then other notice u/s 9(3)(10) was published in the prescribed manner. Tkiro N.S. Balasubramanian claims to be a grand-son of the land owner and he filed a petition before the authorities on 13th November, 1981 stating that the land owner expired on 11th April 1977 and that the enquiry may be held at a later date. Another notice u/s 9(1)(10) was sent asking the land owner and the grand-son to appear for enquiry on 28th December, 1981 The parties did not appear for the enquiry on 28th December, 1981. They have informed the authorities that they were not able to attend the enquiry and requested an adjournment. Again the award enquiry was adjourned to 8th February, 1982 and notices were issued on 8th January, 1982. At this stage, the wife of the land owner has filed the above writ petition.
Two contentions were raised before me by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, viz., that no notice of the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was served on the husband of tie Petitioner and that in any event, notice u/s 9(1)(10) of the Act was not served upon the Petitioner.
The learned Government pleader refutes these contentions and states that as far as the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was concerned, the record itself shows that the Petitioner''s husband was served and he did put forth his objections through his Counsel. It is true, that notice u/s 9(1)(10) of the Act was served on one N.S. Balasubramanian, the daughter''s son of the Petitioner because the Revenue was not aware of the title of the Petitioner. The records disclose the following as far as the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act is concerned and that paragraph 2 of the letter written by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Corporation Cases, Madurai to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai reads as follows:
Notices u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act posting the 5-A enquiry to 5th February, 1974 were published in the prescribe manner on 18th January, 1974 and 19th January, 1974 and served on the owner on 18th January, 1974. Enquiry was conducted on 5th February, 1974. The owner appeared on the date of 5-A enquiry and filed an objection petition for the proposed acquisition through his advocate. I inspected the land on 12th February, 1974. The objections raised by the owners are dealt with in the 5-A enquiry proceedings enclosed. The objections may be over-ruled "for the reasons stated in the 5-A proceedings and the land acquisition proceedings may, therefore, be pursued'''' .
In view of the above letter, the first point is rejected.
It is sure, the Petitioner is entitled to notice u/s 9(1)(10) of the Act because she is the rightful claimant to the property in question. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the Government to contend that service on N.S. Balasubramanian would be enough because the Petitioner still has a right. Accepting this argument, I hereby direct that fresh notice u/s 9(1)(10) of the Act be served upon the Petitioner and thereafter proceed with the acquisition. The writ petition is allowed only to this extent. No costs.