S.Pandiammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.7.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOWrit Appeal Nos.1667 and 1668 of 2000S.Pandiammal .. Appellant in W.A.No.1667 of 2000/Petitioner in W.P.10450/92T.Ranganayaki .. Appellant in W.A.No.1668 of 2000/ Petitioner in W.P.No.10451/92vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Gundu Salai, Semmandalam, Cuddalore-1. .. Respondents in both the Writ Appeals/ Respondents in WPsWrit Appeal No.1667 of 2000 against the order dated 9.6.1999passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10450 of 1992on the file of this Court.Writ Appeal No.1668 of 2000 against the order dated 9.6.1999passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10451 of 1992on the file of this Court.Writ Petition No.10450 of 1992 filed to issue a writ ofCertiorari to call for the records relating to the sec 4(1)notification made in G.O.Ms.No.431 Housing and Urban Developmentdated 22.3.91 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette Part IISec.2 dated 10.4.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Gazette in Part II Sec.2 dated 15.5.1992 and quash thesame. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition No.10451 of 1992: filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarito calling for the records relating to the Section 4(1) Notificationmade in G.O.Ms.No.431 Housing and Urban Development dated 22.3.91 andpublished in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette Part II Section 2 dated10.4.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing and Urban Development dated14.5.1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Govt.Gazette in part IISection 2 dated 15.5.92 and quash the same.For appellants : Mr.G.DevadossFor respondents: Mr.D.Srinivasan, Addl.G.P.JUDGMENT(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J)The appellant-writ petitioners are aggrieved by a part of theorder of the learned single Judge, dated 9.6.1999 in Writ PetitionNos.10450 and 10451 of 1992, whereby their cases have been remittedfor Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (forshort, 'the Act'). 2. As the cases can be disposed of on a short question, it isnot necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.3. The State Government issued Notification under Section 4(1)of the Act on 22.3.1991, vide G.O.Ms.No.431, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department, which was published in the Gazette on10.4.1991; it was published in the local dailies — Dhina Thoothu andDhina Puratchi on 26.4.1991; publication of the Notification in thelocality was made on 22.5.1991; the Enquiry under Section 5-A of theAct was conducted on 14.8.1991, the Declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act was issued on 14.5.1992, vide G.O.Ms.No.247, Housing andUrban Development Department, i.e. eight days before the expiry ofone year from the date of issuance of the Notification in thelocality, i.e. from 22.5.1991. The Declaration under Section 6 of theAct was published in the Gazette on 15.5.1992, followed by thepublication in the local dailies – Makkal Kural and Dhina Thoothu on16.5.1992 and the publication of the Declaration was made in thelocality on 19.5.1992.4. The appellants (writ petitioners) preferred two separate WritPetitions, challenging the common Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act,and therein, interim order of stay was granted on 30.7.1992, due towhich, no Award was passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. By the impugned common order, dated 9.6.1999, both the WritPetitions were partly allowed by the learned single Judge, declaringthe Declaration issued Section 6 of the Act as illegal and set asidethe same, thereby, remitted the matter for conducting fresh Enquiryunder Section 5-A of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writpetitioners submitted that the Notification under Section 4(1) of theAct, having been published and the same having been Gazetted on10.4.1991, the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act ought tohave been issued within one year from the date of the publication ofthe Notification. If the period of the interim order of stay passedin the Writ Petitions is excluded, i.e. the period from 26.7.1992 to9.6.1999, then in that case also, the Declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act ought to have been issued by 17.6.1999, i.e. the last datefor expiry of one year from the date of the publication of theNotification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this background, it iscontended that the question of Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Actis uncalled for.7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Statehas not disputed the facts as brought to the notice of the Court, butaccording to him, a fresh Notification can be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand perused the records.9. Admittedly, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Actwas Gazetted on 10.4.1991. It was published in the dailies on26.4.1991 and in the locality on 22.5.1991, thereby, within one year,the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been made,which was made, but the same was set aside by this Court. Under thelaw, if the period of interim order is excluded, even then, by thistime, it is not possible for the State to issue a Declaration underSection 6 of the Act, on the basis of the Notification issued underSection 4(1) of the Act.10. The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act fell forconsideration before the Supreme Court in the case of "Padma SundaraRao vs. State of T.N." reported in 2002 (3) SCC 533, wherein, theSupreme Court held that the purpose of providing the period oflimitation under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act seemsto be the avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land is soughtto be acquired. The language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguousand there is no scope for reading something into it. The prescriptionof time limit under the first proviso is peremptory and if theDeclaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed by the Court, afresh Declaration must be issued within the same limitation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.11. The case of the appellants being covered by the firstproviso to Section 6(1) of the Act and the decision of the SupremeCourt in the said case, we hold that the respondents cannot alsoproceed further with the Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act for thepurpose of issuance of Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on thebasis of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which wasGazetted on 10.4.1991.12. As 15 days' notice for Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Actwas mandatory, with eight days prior to the completion of one yearunder the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, it was notdesirable for the learned single Judge to remit the matter for freshEnquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 13. The prayer made in the Writ Petitions stands allowed to theextent indicated above and the impugned order dated 9.6.1999 passedby the learned single Judge stands modified to the extent indicatedabove. However, this judgment shall not sand in the way of theauthorities to issue fresh Notification under Section 4(1) of theAct, if there is any public interest under the Act.14. Both the Writ Appeals stand allowed with the aforesaidobservations. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarcsTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Gundu Salai, Semmandalam, Cuddalore-1.+1 cc to Mr.G.Devadoss, Advocate, SR.No.34455Writ Appeal Nos.1667 and 1668 of 2000RSI {CO}TP/3.8.2009.