Zarin Taj Begum and Others vs Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Works) and Others

K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of locating the office of the

Assistant Engineer, Madras Telephones in the premises belonging to the petitioners.

It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil

Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section II, dated 1-10-1986 in respect of the petitioners'' land for the purpose of installing an Electronic

Exchange by Madras Telephones. On 9-6-1987, an enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act was also conducted. It is further seen that in spite of the

petitioners'' objection to the acquisition of their property, the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1900 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated

19-11-1987, declared that the land belonging to the petitioners was needed for a public purpose by the Telephone Department. After the receipt

of notice under Sections 9(3) and 10of the Act, the petitioners caused an enquiry to be conducted regarding Section 6 declaration. It seems that

the petitioner also came to know that Section 6 declaration was already published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 19-11-1987. It

is under these circumstances, the petitioners have come before this court, challenging the land acquisition proceedings.

It is stated in the affidavit that the declaration u/s 6 of the Act as published in the Government Gazette dated 19-11-1987 is illegal and the same

is liable to be quashed. It is also stated in the affidavit that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, declaration u/s 5 should be given before the

expiry of one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. It is further stated in the affidavit that the first petitioner is contemplating

to locate an Electronic factory in the premises, that Madras Telephones has already located the Electronic Exchange in Haddows Road, Madras

and that should be sufficient to meet the needs of the locality. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is absolutely no necessity to locate the

Electronic Exchange so close to the existing Electronic Exchange in Haddows Road, Madras.

When this writ petition came up for admission, notice of motion has been ordered by me on 26-10-1989. One common counter affidavit on

behalf of first and second respondents and another counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent have been filed. Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanlham,

learned Additional Government Pleader appears for first and second respondents and Mr. R. Jamal Nazeem appears for third respondent.

It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of first and second respondents that notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil

Nadu Government Gazette on 1-10-1986 and that the Government has also approved the Draft Declaration and published in the Gazette on 19-

11-1987, in respect of the property measuring 9 grounds and 1002 sq. ft. in R.S. No. 1625/2 of Egmore Village in Montieth Road. It is also

stated in the counter affidavit that the substance of the said notification was published in the locality on 21-11-1986. It is further suited in the

counter affidavit that the draft declaration is valid since it was published within one year from the date of publication of the substance of 4(1)

notification in the locality. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was also published in the two local

dailies viz., one in ''News To-day'' on 9-10-1986 and another in ''Makkal Kural'' on 10-10-1986. An enquiry u/s 5(A) of the Act was also

conducted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the notice dated 28-11-1986 was published in the public offices and locality on 4-12-1986

and was also served on the land owners also. After considering all the aspects, all the objections of the owner as of the premises were over-ruled

and orders were passed on the 5-A enquiry on 9-6-1987. The Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1990 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated 19-

11-1987 also approved the Draft Declaration u/s 6 of the Act and published the declaration in the Gazette on 19-11-1987. It is also stated in the

counter affidavit that an Award has also been passed on 17-11-1989, after observing the required formalities, that the Government has carefully

considered and examined all the aspects and then ordered for the location of Electronic Exchange of Madras Telephones, which is for a public

purpose, that public interest is more important than individual''s interest, that the Gazette publication of the Draft Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was

on 19-11-1987, which is clearly within the period of one year, that the premises is needed for accommodating Electronic Exchange and that the

delivery of possession of the building is urgently required to carry out further development.

In the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the third respondent, it is stated that in view of large number of multi storeyed buildings that have come

up in and around the locality, there is a huge increase in the telephone demand and that to meet the ever growing demand, the Collector of Madras

has been requested to acquire this property for the construction of Telephone Exchange building. It is further stated that it is also very essential to

have the Telephone exchange located in a particular area where, the telephone density is high, that after considering all the aspects, the site

acquired is the one best suited for Telephone Exchange and further, no other suitable site is available in the nearby area. With regard to the

allegation of the distance between the petition premises and the other Electronic Exchange in the same locality, it is replied in the counter that the

distance is not a criterion for locating a Telephone Exchange but only the Telephone density is the deciding factor in that particular area and that to

meet the ever growing demand in and around this property, the acquisition of this property for locating a Telephone Exchange is very necessary.

Mr. Sridar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is not able to controvert the case of the Respondents regarding the acquisition

proceedings, in view of the categorical statements made in the counter affidavit and in the records that were produced before me. As such, I do

not find any substance in his contention that the declaration u/s 6 of the Act has been made after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of

publication of 4(1) notification. It is very clear from Section 4(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:

...that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official

Gazette, (and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which atleast one shall be in the regional language) and the Collector shall cause

public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality, (the last of the dates of such publication and

the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the publication)

(Emphasis is mine).

Further, it is well settled that this court cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the authorities about the necessity of acquiring the property and it

is for the Government to decide the same. The property in question is needed for locating an Electronic Exchange and the necessity for such

location in that area is also there.

As such, there are no merits in this writ petition. This writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.