AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.
In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the Section 4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989 and Section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1997 issued under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
It is admitted that the lands in Survey Nos. 177, 178, 179/1 and 179/3 situate at Sankara Peri Village, Tuticorin Taluk belonged originally to S. Alagirisamy Naicker, S/o. Sankarappa Naicker, Madurai, under a registered sale deed, dated 30.10.1987, document No. 1530/1987. The said Alagirisamy Naicker sold the aforesaid properties to one N.V. Srinivasan for valid consideration and ever-since the sale, N.V. Srinivasan had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It was also claimed that patta was also changed in the name of N.V. Srinivasan on 08.12.1997. Thereafter, in July 1989 N.V. Srinivasan approached the Special Tasildhar, Land Acquisition, Tuticorin, to verify whether the lands are to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tasildhar, Land Acquisition, Tuticorin, issued a certificate, dated 13.07.1989 that the lands are not under the process of land acquisition for Housing Board. Thereafter, the said N.V. Srinivasan formed a lay out and sold various plots to various persons and the petitioners have purchased 3 plots on different dates from the said N.V. Srinivasan.
Meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the aforesaid lands for the purpose of providing house sites to Washerman of Kandasamypuram, Sakthivinayagapuram, Polanickenpettai and Selvanayagipuram in Tuticorin Town and issued G.O.Ms. No. 379, Backward Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meals Programme and Social Welfare, dated 20.04.1989 and the Section 4(1) notification was issued on 10.05.1989. It is admitted that in the Section 4(1) notification, the name of the original owner Alagirisamy Naicker was found and the name of the purchaser, N.V. Srinivasan, who purchased the property in the year 1987 was not mentioned in the said Section 4(1) notification. Without knowing the acquisition process, the said N.V. Srinivasan sold plots to various persons and the petitioners are the purchasers of some of the plots. On coming to know of the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of Section 4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989, N.V. Srinivasan appeared before the Authorities and informed that he was not given any notice and he purchased the properties and the Section 4(1) notification is also not valid as his name was not mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification. He also objected to the acquisition of the land and in the 5(A) enquiry conducted by the authorities, the Special Tasildhar, did not consider the objection of the said N.V. Srinivasan and the Government issued Section 6 declaration, dated 12.05.1990. Therefore, the said N.V. Srinivasan challenged the Section 6 declaration by filing Writ Petition No. 11653 of 1990 and that writ petition was allowed by this Court, by judgment, dated 21.02.1992 and Section 6 declaration was quashed. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and enquiry was conducted u/s 5A and N.V. Srinivasan did not participate in the enquiry and finally, Section 6 declaration was published on 30.04.1997. This Section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1997 is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 8337 of 2007 and Section 4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989 is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 8336 of 2007.
The respondents filed a common counter stating that as per the name found in the revenue records, the name of the owner, Alagirisamy Naicker was mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification and the name of the subsequent purchaser, N.V. Srinivasan was not entered in the revenue records when enquiries were started and Section 4(1) notification was issued and therefore, there is no error in issuing Section 4(1) notification mentioning the name of Alagirisamy Naicker and unless the subsequent purchaser''s name find a place in the revenue records, the authorities are not expected to know about the purchase by N.V. Srinivasan and therefore, Section 4(1) notification was issued in accordance with law and it cannot be quashed. It is further stated that after Section 4(1) notification, N.V. Srinivasan appeared through counsel and informed about his purchase and Form 3-A notice issued to him it could not be served on him and therefore, it was served by affixing the same in his land itself and 5A enquiry was conducted on 09.08.1989 and 31.08.1989 and Section 6 declaration was made on 11.05.1990. It is further submitted that after Section 6 declaration was quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 11653 of 1990, further proceedings were initiated and the 5(A) enquiry was conducted and notice was served on N.V. Srinivasan on 18.06.1992 and N.V. Srinivasan filed O.S. No. 235 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, for injunction, but no interim injunction was granted. Therefore, 5-A enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent and after completing the enquiry, proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent, dated 19.06.1992 over-ruling the objection raised by the owner. Thereafter, N.V. Srinivasan filed W.P. No. 11730 of 1992 challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 19.06.1992 and the same was dismissed as premature. Thereafter, the Government approved the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in its G.O.(3D) No. 20, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare, dated 30.04.1997 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 02.05.1997. This G.O.(3D) No. 20, was challenged by N.V. Srinivasan in W.P.(MD) No. 8396 of 1997 and that was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.03.2006.
It is further stated that Section 6 declaration was published within the stipulated time and in W.P. No. 11653 of 1990, this Court while quashing Section 6 declaration did not prescribe any time limit for the issuance of Section 6 declaration after conducting 5-A enquiry and as no time limit is earmarked in the Court order, the declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act, dated 30.04.1997 is well within time and cannot be quashed.
It is submitted by Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that having regard to the provision of Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the time frame stipulated for the issuance of Section 6 declaration notice is mandatory and when Section 6 notification was issued beyond the one year period from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification, it has to be quashed and in this case, admittedly, Section 6 declaration was made on 11.05.1990 and it was beyond the period of one year from Section 4(1) notification, dated 10.05.1989 and that was also quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 11653 of 1990 and even assuming that the period during which the aforesaid writ petition was pending before this Court has to be excluded, W.P. No. 11653 of 1990 was allowed and Section 6 declaration, dated 11.05.1990 was quashed on 21.02.1992 and time begin to run from that date and Section 6 declaration ought to have been made within one year from 21.02.1992, the date of judgment of W.P. No. 11653 of 1990 and admittedly, Section 6 declaration was made only on 30.04.1997 and hence, it is beyond the period of one year and it is liable to be quashed.
The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan appearing for the petitioners further submitted that as per proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, no declaration in respect of any of land covered by a notification u/s 4(1) shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification and in this case, admittedly, Section 4(1) notification was made on 10.05.1989 and Section 6 declaration is now made only on 30.04.1997 and hence, it is beyond one year period and hence, it is liable to quashed. He further submitted that when the Act specifically provided that Section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of Section 4(1) notification and when admittedly, Section 6 declaration was made after the expiry of one year period, no proceedings can be initiated in pursuance to Section 4(1) notification and therefore, Section 6 declaration is also liable to be quashed.
He relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , which was followed in the judgment reported in Vijay Narayan Thatte and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, . in support of his contention and submitted that as Section 6 declaration was passed after the period of one year and therefore, no proceedings can be taken or initiated in pursuance to Section 4(1) notification and hence, Section 4(1) notification is also liable to be quashed.
Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that originally Section 6 declaration was made in time and when Section 4(1) notification was issued on 10.05.1989, as per the revenue records, the name of Alagirisamy Naicker was mentioned in that notification and therefore, Section 4(1) notification was issued in accordance with law and while quashing Section 6 declaration by this Court, no time limit has been prescribed for the publication of Section 6 declaration and therefore, after conducting fresh enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 19.06.1992 and that was challenged by the owner, N.V. Srinivasan in W.P. No. 11730 of 1992 and that was disposed of on 18.08.1992 as premature and therefore, on 30.04.1997 Section 6 declaration was issued and hence, it is valid in law.
He further submitted that N.V. Srinivasan challenged Section 6 declaration by filing W.P.(MD) No. 9380 of 1997 and that was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.03.2006 and the present writ petitions filed by the present petitioners in the year 2007 challenging the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration are also not maintainable and therefore, the petitions are to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both parties.
In this case, the facts are admitted. The Section 4(1) notification was issued on 10.05.1989 and N.V. Srinivasan purchased the property on 30.08.1987 and it is claimed that patta was also transferred in his name on 08.12.1987, but no proof was filed by the petitioners that prior to Section 4(1) notification, patta was transferred in the name of N.V. Srinivasan. It was only stated in the affidavit that patta was transferred in his name on 08.12.1987 and there is no specific denial by the respondents in their counter. The respondents have stated that as on date of Section 4(1) notification, the name of the N.V. Srinivasan was not found in the revenue records and hence, his name was not included or mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification.
Further, Section 6 declaration was made on 11.05.1990. As per Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it has to be made within one year and there is no material available to show the last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification and therefore, it cannot be stated that Section 6 declaration issued originally on 11.05.1990 was beyond the period of one year. However, Section 6 declaration, dated 11.05.1990 was admittedly quashed by this Court in W.P. No. 11653 of 1990 on 21.02.1992. Therefore, we will have to see whether the subsequent Section 6 declaration was made within the period of one year from the date of Section 4(1) notification.
Admittedly, Section 6 declaration was made on 30.04.1997 and it is beyond the period of one year, even from the date of disposal of W.P. No. 11653 of 1990. Hence, it is beyond the period of one year and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
The contention of Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is that while quashing Section 6 declaration by this Court, no time limit has been prescribed for issuing fresh declaration and therefore, after conducting 5-A enquiry, the Section 6 declaration was made on 30.04.1997 and hence, it cannot be stated that it was issued beyond the period of one year. This was answered by the Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2002 (2) CTC 55 in the matter of Padmasundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors.. In that reported case, the controversy that was resolved was whether after quashing the notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another notification u/s 6. The Honourable Supreme Court held that fresh period of one year is not available to the State Government for issuing Section 6 declaration and even after quashing Section 6 declaration, the subsequent declaration has to be made within one year from the date of Section 4(1) notification. This was made clear in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court reported in Fathimabi, K.R. Rahamathullah, K.R. Athavullah Basha and K.R. Ismail Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, . In that judgment, his Lordship Justice Mr. P. Sathasivam as he then was, relied upon the Constitutional Bench judgment reported in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, and held that the respondents are not permitted to proceed further with the existing Section 4(1) notification and if they so desire, they are free to proceed afresh by issuing fresh Section 4(1) notification and in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Vijay Narayan Thatte and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , following the Constitutional Bench of our Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , the Honourable Supreme Court in similar circumstances quashed the Section 6 declaration.
Further, the contention of Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that no period has been prescribed, while quashing the earlier Section 6 declaration in W.P. No. 11653 of 1990 and therefore, one year period need not be adhered to cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments, all these aspects were also discussed and held that Section 6 declaration has to be made within one year from the date of Section 4(1) notification and the Government cannot proceed further on the basis of Section 4(1) notification and if they so desire, they can issue fresh Section 4(1) notification for the same purpose.
For all the reasons and following the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above, Section 6 declaration, dated 30.04.1990 is quashed as it was made beyond the period of one year from Section 4(1) notification and as result of quashing of Section 6 declaration, the Government cannot proceed further in pursuance of Section 4(1) notification and Section 4(1) notification is also quashed. It is, however, open to the respondents to issue fresh 4(1) notification, if they are keen in acquiring the lands by following due process of law.
In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.