AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to question the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Central Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, under G.O.(3D) No. 81, Backward Classes Department dated 31.10.1995 and G.O.(3D) No.70 Backward Classes and
Most Backward Classes Welfare dated 4.12.1996.
The petitioners'' family owns the land in Survey No.119/1, 120/1A in Boganapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. An extent of 1.17.0 hectare which
was sought to be acquired.
The following points had been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners:-
(i) Notification is vague considering that the purpose of acquisition had not been stated.
(ii) The petitioners'' family consists of large number of members and they would be deprived of their only property. The petitioners'' family was also
subjected to acquisition of land belonging to them on earlier occasion for establishing the Government Polytechnic and if the impugned proceedings
are also proceeded with, the remaining extent of the land available with them would be of no use.
(iii) The publication of the notification were in insignificant Newspapers and not in conformity of the statutory requirements under Sections 4 and 6
of the Act.
(iv) The objections given by the petitioners had not been properly considered by the acquiring authority and hence the proceedings are vitiated by
non-application of mind.
Learned Additional Government Pleader however, disputes the various points raised by the petitioners. It is contended that all the statutory
requirements have been complied with and the petitioners have also filed their objections in the enquiry u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition act and
hence no prejudice having been caused to the petitioners. They cannot be heard to complain non-publication of the notification in Newspapers
having larger circulation. Atleast one of the two newspapers had good circulation. Learned Additional Government Pleader contends that
possession of the land had been taken over on 27.3.1997 and award has also been passed on 18.3.1997.
I have considered the submissions of both sides. I am unable to accept the first objection relating to the notification being vague. A perusal of the
notification clearly discloses that the property was sought to be acquired for a public purpose for provision of house sites to the barbers of the
villages as stated in the notification. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the notification was vague.
However, I am inclined to uphold the objection relating to the improper compliance of requirements under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act in causing publications in two Newspapers having wide circulation. Admittedly, notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in
Malai Murasu and Vetri Malai on 1.12.1997. It is not disputed that ""Vetri Malai"" is not a Newspaper having any circulation in the locality much
less wide circulation as required under the Act. Likewise, publication of declaration u/s 6 of the At was made on 8.12.1997 in ""Dinakaran"" and
Pirpagal"". Here again there is no dispute over the fact that the Newspaper ""Pirpagal"" does not have any circulation in the area. The contention that
one of the two papers in which the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 had been published, had adequate circulation is not sufficient
compliance of the mandatory requirement. The requirement cannot be rendered as farce, by the authorities deliberately resorting to such illegal
exercise of power, in spite of this Court repeatedly having pointed out that the provisions cannot be rendered ineffective. 7. The contention of
learned Additional Government Pleader that in view of the fact that the petitioners have taken part in the enquiry proceedings, no prejudice is
caused, cannot also be accepted. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court in number of judgments that the statutory requirement of
publication in Newspapers having wide circulation is mandatory as much as the need for publication in the Gazette and is not to be confused with
the individual notice to be sent for enquiry. Improper compliance of the said mandatory requirement of publication to the general public, would
result in vitiating the entire proceedings. In contrast, the failure to send personal notice to the aggrieved persons may be held as not having caused
any prejudice in the event of the land owners filing their objections. Non-compliance of the requirements under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, of the need to publish in Newspapers having wide publication/circulation is a mandatory requirement and the illegality will not be
wiped out by the petitioners having filed their objection in the enquiry u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The purpose of such mandatory
notification under Sections 4 and 6 is totally different. Therefore, on that ground alone the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
The further contention that the petitioners'' family is a big family and that the acquisition would deprive them of their property, is also not a valid
ground to resist the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, so long as the purpose of acquisition is shown to be for a genuine public purpose.
But at the same time, the reasons thus given by the petitioners relating to the difficulties or disadvantages to them as would result from the
proceedings, have to be properly dealt with and considered in a proper manner before the final decision. Otherwise, there will be no purpose in
calling for objection. One of the objections stated by them is that the part of their property was already acquired for establishing Government
Polytechnic. This contention has not been properly considered by the acquiring authority. The said objection has been taken by the petitioners in
the enquiry itself, in the representation as well as in the statement given by the petitioners. It has been clearly stated that an extent of 2 acres 15
cents had been already acquired in Survey No.15 for establishing Krishnagiri Government Polytechnic. The objector has further stated that in the
portion of the land which is sought to be acquired, she was eking out from the livelihood only from the income derived from the trees and the crops
which are cultivated in the land. It is true that it is open to the respondents to reject the claims on the ground that there are no other alternative
lands are available. But the minimum which is expected is proper consideration of the objections and their claim that a part of the property was
already subjected to the acquisition for establishing a Government Polytechnic, has not been properly considered by the Acquiring Authority. The
Acquiring Authority/the Special Tahsildar in the order relating to the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act, had observed that the petitioners had not furnished
any proof of any prior acquisition for establishing the Government Polytechnic. The said reasoning is certainly unacceptable having regard to the
fact that the Revenue have all the information on their hands. The claim of the petitioners is also found to be correct from the counter filed by
respondents 5 and 6. In the counter, the fact that there was an earlier acquisition for establishing the Government Polytechnic has been admitted
and it is stated that of an extent of 4.02 acres in Survey No.115 had been acquired for establishing the Government Polytechnic.
Therefore, I am inclined to hold that one of the reasons/objections given by the petitioners for objecting to the acquisition namely that part of the
lands belonging to them have already been acquired and that further acquisition would be detrimental to them, had not been properly considered
by the Tahsildar or other authorities subsequently. The respondents ought to have taken into account the said objections while taking decision to
acquire the land of the petitioners. The Acquiring Authority had proceeded on a misconception as though the claim of the petitioners in the said
context was totally incorrect. The objector is a lady/widow who did not have the specific particulars with her regarding the earlier acquisition and
the Revenue having all the information available with themselves cannot lightly reject the objections on the ground that they were not substantiated
at the time of enquiry. The State is dealing with valuable rights of parties and certain amount of human touch is necessary instead of adopting a
mechanical approach. At least the enquiry could have been adjourned to enable the objector to furnish materials. The claim of the objector was
found to be true at a later stage.
I am also unable to accept the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that possession of the property had been taken over and
that the award has also been passed. At the outset, it may be stated that the mere fact of passing of the award or taking possession of the property
cannot result in non-suiting the claim of the petitioners. If it is shown that proceedings are invalid or illegal for any reason, the mere fact that
possession had been taken or award had been passed, cannot be a reason for rejecting the valid grounds which are raised by the land owners
questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings. If such is the law, then in no case where award is passed or possession is taken, it will be
open to the land owner to raise any objection, notwithstanding the total illegality or mala fides of the proceedings. The judgments of the Supreme
Court in the said context should be understood in the factual background in which reference had been made to fact of possession having been
taken or Award having been passed and the futility of proceeding further. I have not been pointed out even any general observation by the
Supreme Court or any other binding decision that the mere fact that possession had been taken or an Award had been passed, would dis-entitle
the owner to question the legality of the proceedings.
On the facts also, it is seen that though the respondents contended that possession had been taken on 27.3.1997, the petitioners are able to
show that they are still in possession of the land. It is also seen that while admitting the writ petition, an order of interim stay of dispossession has
been granted on 14.3.1997 itself whereas the respondents are stated to have taken possession on 27.3.1997. The said claim cannot therefore, be
true. Further, it is also admitted that the property has not been demarcated and no house site patta has also been issued to the beneficiaries.
Therefore, the claim that possession has been taken on 26.7.1997, cannot be accepted.
In the result, the writ petitioners are entitled to succeed and the writ petition is allowed subject to the liberty of the respondents to proceed
afresh only in accordance with law. No costs.