AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.06.1999 made in W.P. No.
12577/94, in and by which, the learned single Judge, after finding that there is no compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, has
quashed the acquisition proceedings and allowed all the three writ petitions.
Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.
The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether there is compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules
(hereinafter referred to as ""the Rules). Among the several contentions on behalf of the petitioners, it was projected before the learned single Judge
that though they have filed their objections to the acquisition proceedings, their objections were forwarded to the requisitioning body, Housing
board, but their views were not communicated to the petitioners/land owners and thereafter no further enquiry was conducted by the Land
Acquisition Officer in terms of Rule 3(b) as it stood at the relevant time.
The learned Government Advocate has contended that the respondents have fully complied with the provisions of Rule 3(b). Though a
statement was made to that effect, the same was not substantiated by placing relevant dates such as, the last date of notification u/s 4(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, the date on which the petitioners have submitted their objections etc. Even in the grounds of appeal, the
appellants have not specifically mentioned when the objections were submitted by the petitioners and when the same were forwarded to the
requisitioning body and when the requisitioning body offered their remarks. Among the three grounds raised in the memorandum of grounds of
appeal, the second ground is relevant, which reads as under:
The learned Judge ought to have seen that the objections submitted by the writ petitioner were forwarded to the requisitioning body on ..and the
remarks of the requisitioning body were also forwarded to the objectors on...and hence, there was no violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land
Acquisition Act.
The above information amply shows that the appellants are not very much interested in questioning the order of the learned single Judge. When
they are having enough materials to show that there is compliance of Rule 3(b), it is but proper on their part to furnish the required particulars, such
as, the last date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the date on which the petitioners have submitted their objections, when the same were
forwarded to the requisitioning body and when the Land Acquisition Officer has received the same etc. In the absence of such factual details, the
claim of the appellants that there is compliance of Rule 3(b), cannot be accepted. When the learned single Judge, on verification of the records, has
arrived at a conclusion that the said mandatory provision viz., 3(b) of the Rules, has not been complied with, in the absence of materials, we have
no other option, except to confirm the factual conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. No
costs.
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/land owners has submitted that inasmuch as the scheme has not been implemented so far and of
the fact that they had constructed small house and residing therein, their lands may be exempted from the purview of the proceedings. The same
cannot be considered by this Court at this juncture. However they are free to make a representation to the Government highlighting their grievance.
It is further made clear that if any such representation is made, the Government is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law
expeditiously.