AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the acquisition of their lands by the respondents, which
are sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ""the Act"") in G.O.Ms.No.433,
Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.5.1990, passed by the first respondent, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
Part-II, Section 2, supplement on 23.5.1990 for a housing scheme called Sholinganallur Neighborhood scheme Phase-III.
It is not in dispute that the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act on 14.5.1990, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on
23.5.1990, in two tamil dailies, viz., Dinakaran on 4.6.1990 and Morosely on 5.6.1990. The local publication of the said notification was also
made on 19.6.1990.
Pursuant to the said notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, concededly, the petitioners were served with a notice for an enquiry u/s 5A of the Act,
which was reportedly served on the petitioner in W.P.No.9967 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9968 of 1997 by registered post
with acknowledgment due, the petitioner in W.P.No.9970 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9971 of 1997 on 28.7.1990, the
petitioner in W.P.No.9973 of 1997 on 31.7.1990, the petitioner in W.P.No.9974 of 1997 by registered post with acknowledgment due, the
petitioner in W.P.No.9975 of 1997 on 2.2.1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.9976 of 1997 on 31.7.1990, the petitioner in W.P.No.9977 of 1997
on 4.2.1991. The service of the notices on the petitioners is not disputed at all. Thereafter, an enquiry u/s 5A of the Act was held on 26.2.1991 in
the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.9973 of 1997, on 25.2.1991 in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.9974 of 1997, and some of the
petitioners, viz., the petitioners in W.P.No.9975 of 1997 and W.P.Nos.9977 of 1997, who could not attend the enquiry sent their objections on
9.2.1991 and 7.2.1991 respectively.
After complying with the procedure contemplated under Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Rules, communicating the remarks of the Acquisition
Authority to the land owners and considering their objections in that regard, a declaration was passed u/s 6 of the Act on 7.6.1991 in
G.O.Ms.No.948, Housing and Urban Development Department and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on
11.6.1991; in the locality on 12.6.1991 and in the local dailies, viz., Malaimalar on 13.6.1991 and Dinamalar on 14.6.1991.
At this stage, M/s.Vigneswara Nagar Association filed W.P.No.9194 of 1991 before this Court challenging the impugned land acquisition
proceedings and also obtained an order of stay on 12.11.1991, but the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.9.1995. Thereafter, a
notice for award enquiry as contemplated u/s 9(3) of the Act was served on the petitioners, and ultimately an award was passed on 23.4.1997.
When a notice u/s 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioners on 12.5.1997, the petitioners have chosen to file these writ petitions in the year
1997, challenging the notifications made u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential declarations made u/s 6 of the Act.
The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions are:
(i) the petitioners were not granted sufficient opportunity to put forth their cases in the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act; and
(ii) the award was passed beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration and therefore, in view of Section 11A of the Act, the entire
acquisition proceedings are lapsed.
7.1. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent/Board
submits that all the petitioners have been served with the notice for the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act and that some of them appeared for the enquiry
and some of them sent their objections by post.
7.2. Even though the petitioners allege that some of them sought adjournment of the enquiry contemplated u/s 5A of the Act and that they were not
given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth their objections, the counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioners were served with
the notice for the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act, but they failed to avail such opportunity effectively, and therefore, the same would not amount to a
denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth their objections in the enquiry contemplated u/s 5A of the Act.
7.3. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire acquisition proceedings lapse as the award was
passed after a period of two years, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that, there is no delay in passing the award attracting Section
11A of the Act for the lapse of the entire impugned acquisition proceedings. It is contended that, assuming the award is alleged to be passed
beyond the period of two years, taking the date of declaration u/s 6 of the Act as relevant date for computing the period of two years, as provided
u/s N. Narasimhaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others and Union of India (UOI) and Others,
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
A careful perusal of the relevant records regarding the acquisition proceedings reveals that all the petitioners have been served with a notice for
an enquiry as contemplated u/s 5A of the Act and in fact, as rightly pointed out by Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader,
some of the petitioners had participated in the enquiry and some of them submitted their objections through post.
The isolated case of few of the petitioners that they have sought for an adjournment of the enquiry, as rightly contended by the
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, would not be a denial of an opportunity contemplated u/s 5A of the Act, as it is a
clear case that the petitioners failed to avail the opportunity extended to them in compliance of the Section 5A of the Act.
11.1. With regard to the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, as to the violation of Section 11A of the Act, I am obliged to refer
the following relevant dates for the risk of repetition:
Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in:
the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on: 11/6/1991
the locality on: 12/6/1991
the tamil daily Malai Malar on: 3/6/1991
the tamil daily Dinamalar on: 14/6/1991
11.2. As per Section 6(2) of the Act, only the last date of such publication and giving such public notice of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act shall be
the date of the publication of the declaration, and in which case the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act published in tamil daily, viz., on 14.6.1991 in
Dinamalar, shall be the date of declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
11.3. In the instant case, concededly, M/s.Vigneswara Nagar Association moved this Court in W.P.No.9194 of 1991 and obtained stay of all
further acquisition proceedings by order dated 12.11.1991, and finally the said writ petition was dismissed on 26.9.1995 and thereafter, an award
u/s 12(2) of the Act was passed on 23.4.1997. Therefore, the period of two years, from the date of publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act
till the date of passing of the award, for the purpose of Section 11A of the Act, is computed as follows:-
From the publication of the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act in the tamil
daily Dinamalar, viz., on 14.6.1991 till
the order of stay dated 12.11.1991:
151 days
From the date of dismissal of the writ
petition, viz., 26.9.1995 till the date
of award, viz., 23.4.1997 -
575 days
Total 726 days
It is, therefore, obvious that the award was passed within the period of two years, viz., 730 days from the date of publication of the declaration u/s
6 of the Act on 14.6.1991 in tamil daily, viz.,Dinamalar.
11.4. In view of the materials available on record, the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the entire acquisition proceedings lapse on
the ground that the award was passed beyond the period of two years attracting Section 11A of the Act is not sustainable in law.
11.5. For the sake of further clarity, a reference to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, referred
supra, is more appropriate:
the intervention of the Court in the land acquisition proceedings would prevent the period of limitation from running and the date of final orders of
the Court would be the fresh date of start of limitation for the purpose of Section 11A of the Act.
No doubt, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in PADMA SUNDARA RAO Vs. STATE OF T.N., referred supra, overruled the said
decision in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, referred supra, but the Constitution Bench made it clear that the ratio laid down in PADMA
SUNDARA RAO Vs. STATE OF T.N., referred supra, shall operate only prospectively. Since in the instant case, the award has already been
passed as early as 23.4.1997, the ratio laid down in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, referred supra, would alone be governing. In which
event, when W.P.No.9194 of 1991 filed by M/s.Vigneswara Nagar Association was dismissed by this Court only on 26.9.1995, the award was
passed on 23.4.1997 falls within the period of two years from the date of the order of the Court, which shall be the date of declaration u/s 6 of the
Act, for the purpose of calculating the limitation prescribed u/s 11A of the Act, as per the ratio laid down in N.Narasimhaiah Vs. State of
Karnataka, referred supra.
Hence, finding Section 11A of the Act is not attracted, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings and
therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.