AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, Mr. Ameerjan & Mr. B.A. Shafeeq Ahamad, seeking a direction to
the respondents to drop the proceedings for acquisition of their lands in S. No. 136 of an extent of 1.40.0 Hectares and in S. No. 137/2 an extent
of 0.02.5 Hectares in Berikai Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
The petitioner own 4 Acres 50 cents of agricultural lands in Berikai Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Since the 1st respondent issued
notice u/s 3(1) in Form 1 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 in Na. Ka. No. 811/04, dated 27.12.2004,
stating that the petitioners land along with other lands are required for providing house sites for Adi Dravidars of the village, the 2nd petitioner sent
objections on behalf of himself and his father Ameerjan, the 1st petitioner herein, on 20.01.2005 against the acquisition of lands for Adi Dravida
Housing to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioners also received notice sent by post on 15.01.2005 and 16.01.2005, informing them to
attend the enquiry to be held on 20.01.2005 at 11.a.m. at Krishnagiri, Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Office. The petitioners requested
that the enquiry to be held at some other date instead of 20.01.2005, in view of paucity of time.
Therefore, the only contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that when the notice u/s 4(2) was issued on
15.01.2005 calling upon the petitioners to give their objections to the acquisition and also to attend the enquiry on 20.01.2005, due to the paucity
of time, whether the petitioners were not in a position to participate within the short time. When the Act contemplates providing sufficient time of
15 days, the respondents have not even given one week''s time. Since as per the notice, the petitioners were directed to appear for enquiry within
three days time, the said issuance of notice is under challenge on the ground that the petitioners have been directed to appear by giving explanation
within three days time. Therefore, this is against the principles of natural justice. Further, it was mentioned that when the respondents came forward
to acquire the lands of the petitioners, sufficient time to show explanation should be given. Therefore, when the Act contemplates 15 days time for
giving explanation as well as to participate in the enquiry, within three days, the respondents cannot ask the petitioners to submit their explanation
as well as to participate in the enquiry. On that basis, the present writ petition has been filed.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is itself premature for the simple
reason that the notice u/s 4(2) was received only on 15.01.2005 calling upon the petitioners to give their objections to the acquisition and also to
attend the enquiry on 20.01.2005. Without submitting a detailed written explanation and also objecting the holding of enquiry on 20.01.2005, the
present writ petition has been filed. Therefore, she prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition is not
sustainable in law.
Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
Section 4(2) of the Land acquisition Act clearly contemplates providing sufficient opportunity which includes that the respondents, while issuing
notice, should comply with the notice period of 15 days. But, prima facie, the notice has been issued on 15.01.2005, calling upon the petitioner to
appear for enquiry to be held on 20.01.2005. This clearly indicates that the respondents have not complied with the provisions u/s 4(2) of the said
Act by giving 15 days notice period. Therefore, the respondents are directed to issue fresh notice u/s 4(2) by giving 15 days sufficient time to file
objection and also to appear for enquiry.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.