AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—An extent of land measuring 1 acre and 40 cents in T.S. No. 2756/1-B in South Sethi Vattam, Thiruvarur, is sought to be
acquired by the respondent for the construction of a Police Station and Circle Office for the Inspector of Police at Thiruvarur. Thesaid land jointly
belongs to TmLLakshmi Achi (widow of Chinna Meenakshisundaram Chettiar), Manickam Chettiar and Peria Meenakshisundaram Chettiar who
are respectively the petitioners in the above writ petitions. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it is stated that the very same land
was originally sought to be acquired for a Harijan Welfare Scheme but on objections, the proposal was dropped. Again, acquisition proceedings
were initiated to acquire the land for the Cholan Roadways Corporation and this proposal was not also proceeded with. Now again, the land is
sought to be acquired for the purpose of a Police Station. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ''the Act'')
was issued in G.O.Rt. No. 3530, Home, dated 25-9-1979 and published in the Gazette dated 24-10-1979. The enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was
posted on 10-1-1980 and later adjourned to 18-1-1980. After recording statements from the objectors, the objection petition were forwarded1
to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and his remarks were also obtained. Thereafter, the objections were overruled and the declaration u/s 6
of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2650, Home Department, dated 20.10.1982 and published in the Gazette dated 21.10.1982. Notices u/s
9(3) and 10 of the Act were also issued on 29.11.1982 proposing to hold an Award Enquiry on 17.12.1982. It is at this stage that the above writ
petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings.
Mr. N. Palaniappan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners raises the following contentions: (1) No notice under any of the provisions of
the Act has been served on Tmt. Lakshmi Achi, who is admittedly a joint owner of the land having an 1/3rd share in the land. Information
regarding her ownership was furnished to the Respondent at the time of the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act and in respect of such information, no steps
have been taken to serve Lakshmi Achi. (2) There are other suitable lands available for acquisition and the choice of the petitioners'' land is
unwarranted. (3) A reply affidavit has been filed on 9.10.1990 stating that an alternative site adjacent to the old Tahsildar''s office has been chosen
for the location of the Police Station and the Circle Office and therefore, the acquisition of the petitioners'' land is unnecessary. The main contention
of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the non-service of notice to Lakshmi Achi at any stage of the proceeding totally vitiates the entire
acquisition proceedings. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in P.C.
Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras and Anr. (1989) 1 M.L.J. 222 : (1989) 1 L.W. 231 The question for
consideration in that case was posed as follows:
The question for consideration is whether at the stage of enquiry u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, a person whose name is not entered in the
revenue records as a person interested in the land, is entitled to notice of he enquiry when the officer conducting the nquiry is informed of the
interest possessed y such person in the land.
The question was answered in the affirmative that such notice should be given to the person whose name was not in the notification u/s 4(1) of the
Act. I am clearly of the opinion that this judgment of the Full Bench will not apply to the facts of the case because in this case, the name of Lakshmi
Achi was in the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the respondent was fully aware of her ownership from the beginning. The records also show
that the respondent was aware of her ownership and attempts were made to serve Lakshmi Achi in the manner known to law. The learned
Counsel for the petitioners also cites several other decisions emphasising the importance of individual service of notice u/s 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act. He also relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Panch of Nani Hamam''s Pole and Others, , wherein
the procedure has been indicated with reference to the manner of service u/s 4(1) of the Act. Before referring to the decisions cited at the Bar, I
will do well to refer to the actual facts of the case as seen from the records produced before me by the respondent. There is a letter of the
Tahsildar dated 10.12.1979 at page 169of Volume-I of the File, which clearly summarises the manner in which service was effected in this case.
The said letter is as follows:
I submit that the notice in Form 3 sent with the reference cited has been published in No. 3, Tiruvarur South Sethi Village on 24.11.1979.
Similarly, the notice in Form 3 (a) has been served on Thiruvalargal S. Thangasami Pillai and S. Ramadoss on 24.11.1979. As the land owner,
Thiru Periya Meenakshisundaram Chettiar has refused to receive the notice, the notice was published by affixture at his residence on 24.11.1979.
As the co-partner Thiru Manickam Chettiar is residing at Nannilam, the notice was sent by R.P. AD. and the notice was received by him on
3.12.1979. The postal acknowledgment obtained from him is submitted herewith. As the residential address of Tmt. Lakshmi Achi is not known, a
copy of the notice in Form 3-A was published by affixture on 24.11.1979 at the residence of Thiru Periyameenakshisundaram Chettiar at
Tiruvarur where she was lastly residing. The certificate of publication of notice in this office notice board on 15.11.1979 is also submitted herewith.
Therefore, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court has no application to the facts of this case. This is because even before the issue of the
notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the respondent is aware of the ownership of the land jointly by all the three petitioners. The name of Lakshmi Achi
is not only found in the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act but also in all other relevant papers. The respondent has also attempted to serve Lakshmi
Achi and not knowing her address, has sought to serve her by affixture. Apart from this letter, there is also evidence to show that affixture was in
fact made on 24.11.1979, the question is whether the respondent was justified in resorting to service by affixture in this case. Section 45 of the Act
deals with the procedure for service of notices and it is as follows:
Service of notices : (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a
notice u/s 4, by the Officer therein mentioned, and, in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or the Judge.
(2) Whenever it may be practicable the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named.
(3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him and, if no such adult
male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named
ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the
Collector or in the courthouse, and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired:
Provided that, if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last
known residence, address or place of business and registered under Secs.28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and service of it may be
proved by the production of the addressee''s receipt.
A careful analysis of Section 45(3) of the Act shows that the notice may be served by affixing a copy on the outer door of the house and also in
some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired. As seen from the letter of the Tahsildar dated 10.12.1979, quoted above, the notice under
Form 3(a) was served on Lakshmi Achi by affixture at the residence of Periyameenakshisundaram Chettiar at Thiruvarur where she was lastly
residing. At page 671 of Volume II of the File, there is an endorsement on the reverse of the Form 3(a) notice that the notice was affixed in the
land by planting a stick in the land and pasting the notice thereon. The affixture was made by the Karnam and Village Headman on 22.12.1979.1
am satisfied that the notice meant for Lakshmi Achi has been properly served in accordance with Section 45 of the Act. It is, therefore, not
necessary to go into the question whether individual notices are necessary or not. Inasmuch as I hold notice has been properly served on Lakshmi
Achi, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails. So far as the other two co-owners are concerned, they have
throughout taken part in the acquisition proceedings and they have filed objections and have also participated in the Enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act. It
is interesting to find from the Files that the land was inspected on several occasions and there is a clear report that no suitable alternative lands are
available for acquisition. The report u/s 5-A of the Act dated 31.12.1980 shows that the respondent has discussed the other alternative sites and
come to the conclusion that the other sites suggested by the objectors were found not suitable for the purpose of acquisition. I also find in the files
the notes of inspection of the District Revenue Officer dated 11.2.1981 wherein there is a categorical finding that the poramboke lands suggested
by the petitioners were not at all suitable for building purposes. Further, it is not for this Court to interfere with the decisions of the Government on
the selection of sites in a land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the second contention raised by the petitioners also fails. The last contention is
that the respondent has now selected another site adjacent to the old Tahsildar''s Office at South Street, Thiruvarur for the purpose of locating the
Police Station. The allegation has been made only on 9.10.1990.Icannot certainly expect the learned Government Pleader to ascertain the
correctness of this statement. On this ground, it is not also proper to adjourn this case which is of the year 1982. Therefore, I direct the respondent
to consider this allegation of the petitioner and if really the land in question is not necessary for the establishment of a Police Station, the question of
dropping the acquisition proceedings may be considered. For this purpose, I direct the petitioners, if they are so interested, to file a petition before
the respondent as well as the Government and seek appropriate relief for dropping the acquisition in respect of the petitioners'' land. If any
representation is filed, the respondent is directed to dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of the receipt of such representation,
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.