AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.1999 made in W.P.No.3334 of 1996.
For the purpose of convenience we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.
3.1. The petitioner purchased land of an extent of 32 cents located in Survey No.188/5, Thiruvanmayur Village under a registered document
bearing No.191/1994, dated 31.7.1974 and also obtained a patta in her favour on 16.11.1974 and her name was entered in the revenue records.
Concededly, it was only thereafter, namely on 19.2.1975, the said land was proposed to be acquired for a Housing Scheme by issuing a
notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ""the Act"").
3.2. The said notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act dated 19.2.1975 was challenged by the petitioner''s father-in-law in W.P.No.9484 of 1983
and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 24.4.1991, quashed the said notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act, finding that the said
notification is vague.
3.3. Against the said order dated 24.4.1991, the State preferred an appeal before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13725 of 1992. While
disposing a batch of S.L.Ps. along with the SLP (Civil) No.13725 of 1992, referred to above, on the point whether the notification u/s 4(1) of the
Act can be interfered with on the question of vagueness, the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. Vs. L. Krishnan and others etc.,
held that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act could not be interfered with on the ground of vagueness.
3.4. At the stage when award proceedings were initiated, the petitioner herself challenged the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act in the present writ
petition, viz., W.P.No.3334 of 1996, on the ground that even though the petitioner is the owner of the land from 31.7.1974 and patta was issued
in her favour on 16.11.1974 by the competent revenue authorities, she had never been served with any notice either u/s 4(1) of the Act or u/s 5-A
or u/s 6 of the Act.
3.5. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the respondents, while traversing the said allegation of the petitioner that she is the owner of the
impugned land and no notice under Sections 4(1) or Section 5-A or Section 6 were served on the petitioner, stated as follows:
The details of pattadhar in the Revenue records have been gathered in respect of all the fields covered in the notification, which is a time
consuming process. The pattadhar once gathered could not be verified again and again for the purpose of confirming any change in the revenue
register. The details of pattadhar are gathered and notified to identify the person having an interest over the property without regard to the actual
title conferring absolute right on a person over the land which is being determined subsequently after the notification u/s 4(1) and Draft declaration
u/s 6 of the Act, during Sections 5(A) and 9(3) and 10 enquiry. The title holder is entitled to file objection against acquisition, after the publication
of 4(1) notification. In the instant case, the 4(1) notification has been published in the name of one Tmt.Ranganayakiammal, who was having patta
at the time of enumeration of details regarding the patta holder for submitting proposals for 4(1) notification. The land was again notified u/s 6 on
23.3.1978. The writ petitioner has not filed any objections immediately after notifications.
3.6. In spite of the above specific averments in the counter affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3334 of 1996, the learned single Judge, by order
dated 10.12.1999 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that even though declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made on 23.3.1978 and award
was passed on 28.3.1983, the petitioner has chosen to file a writ petition only on 18.3.1996 and therefore, the petition suffers from laches. Hence,
the writ appeal.
Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant), Mr.P.Rathinavel, learned Government Advocate for 1st respondent and
Mr.Kasikumar, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent, in their arguments, reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge.
We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
6.1. Concededly, the petitioner became the owner of the land with effect from 31.7.1974 based on the registered sale deed and was also issued
patta by the revenue authorities on 16.11.1974. When the said relevant fact is not disputed by the respondents at any point of time in the counter
affidavit either at the earlier stage of the writ petition, namely W.P.No.9484 of 1983, or in the counter affidavit filed in the present
W.P.No.No.3334 of 1996, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition, namely the pattadhar once
gathered could not be verified again and again for the purpose of confirming any change in the revenue register, cannot be an excuse to dispense
with the statutory notice to the petitioner, who is the pattadhar of the impugned land in the matter of land acquisition proceedings particularly, when
necessary changes were made by appropriate revenue proceedings in the revenue records.
6.2. Even though the respondents fairly conceded that the title holder is entitled to file an objection against the acquisition after issue of notification
u/s 4(1) of the Act, at the stage of enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, since the petitioner had not been served any notice at the time of enquiry u/s 5-A of
the Act, before passing the declaration u/s 6 of the Act, she cannot be found fault for not giving her objection either before the enquiry u/s 5-A of
the Act, much less before issuing the declaration u/s 6 of the Act. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that there is a clear violation to
the statutory procedure contemplated u/s 5-A of the Act and Section 6 of the Act.
6.3. It is true that the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt Ltd., and
others, , held that where the acquisition proceedings are completed and the awards are passed, the Court should loath to quash the notification.
But, the said ratio is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY v. I.D.I.
CO. PVT. LTD., referred supra, the challenge was made to the acquisition proceedings by the sitting tenants of the land, quite distinct to the case
of the petitioner in the instant case, who became the owner of the land and was also issued patta by the competent revenue authorities prior to the
notification u/s 4(1) of the Act.
6.4. Similarly, even though it is a well settled principle vide Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, that it is not either desirable or
expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner the discretionary extraordinary remedy of
mandamus, certiorari or any other relief, and the said view was reiterated in a catena of decisions, viz.,
(i) Rabindranath Bose and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; (ii) State of Mysore and Others Vs. V.K. Kangan and Others, ;
(iii) Aflatoon and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, ;
(iv) Tilokchand and Motichand and Others Vs. H.B. Munshi and Another, ;
(v) State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnar, (1996) 1 SCC 250 ;
(vi) IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. JAGJIT SINGH, 1987 Supp. SCC 608;
(vii) STATE OF PUNJAB v. HARI OM COOP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., 1987 Supp. SCC 687;
(viii) Market Committee, Hodal Vs. Krishan Murari and Others, ;
and
(ix) State of Haryana and others Vs. Dewan Singh and others, ,
the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of laches as the impugned acquisition was challenged by the father-in-law of the
petitioner in the year 1983, in W.P.No.9484 of 1983 with a specific case that the petitioner is the owner of the land and had also been issued patta
by revenue authorities, before issuing the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. At no point of time, the fact that petitioner is the owner of the land and
had also been issued patta by competent revenue authorities was considered, inasmuch as, the challenge made by the petitioner to the notification
u/s 4(1) of the Act was rejected only on the ground of vagueness of the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of the order of
the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.13725 of 1992, as reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan, referred supra, reads as under:
Civil Appeals No.9822, 9814-18 and 9819, 9821 of 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c)Nos.13725 of 1992)
...47. Leave granted.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Madras High Court quashing the notifications issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. In view of our judgment in Civil Appeals Nos. 1865-70 of 1992, these appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
6.5. In the contrary, the specific reason for not issuing the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dated 19.2.1975 to the petitioner, even though the
petitioner became the owner of the land on 31.7.1974 and patta was issued on 16.11.1974, was that the respondents cannot be expected to
verify the revenue records again and again for the purpose of confirming any change in the Revenue Register, which, in our considered opinion, is
not only unreasonable and arbitrary, but also perverse and goes to the root of the issue, rendering the entire acquisition proceedings a nullity for
want of issue of notification to the petitioner for an enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act before issuing a declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
In the result, we are unable to agree with the reasons of the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition and on the other hand, we find
force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire acquisition proceedings vitiates for want of notice to the petitioner for
an enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act before passing the declaration u/s 6 of the Act. The acquisition proceedings, therefore, fail and accordingly, they are
set aside. This writ appeal is allowed as prayed for and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs.