Ambikapathi @ Vinayagam v. Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Pondicherry3. The Additional Secretary (Revenue) Land

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying fora Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the Respondents in sofar as it relates to Section 4[1] Notifications issued in G.O.Ms.No.18,dated 20.2.2006 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act byG.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.2.2006 in so far it relates to petitioners land inT.S.No.B/17/91/2 in Saint Fracois Street, Kurusukuppam, Pondicherry,Revenue Village, Pondicherry and quash the same.WP.No.42934/2006: 1. Krishnasamy @ Ramanujam2. Krishnasamy @ Krishnan3. Padmanabhan S/o. Arumugam..Petitioner.-Vs-1. The Additional Secretary[Revenue]cum Disaster Management,Government of Pundicherry,Saram, Pondicherry 13.2. The Land Acquisition Officer,Deputy Collector – Revenue,Saram, Pondicherry 13.3. The Chief Secretary to Government,Government Chief Secretariat,Goubert Avenue,Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry 605 001...Respondents.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Writof Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st Respondentin G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 5.10.1006 in so far as the lands of the petitionersare concerned in S.O.No.2 to 10 mentioned in the Notification and quashthe proceedings therein as illegal, incompetent and without Jurisdiction.WP.No.48687/2006:1. A.Purushothaman2. A.Muthukrishnan..Petitioners.-Vs-1. Union of India, rep. By the Additional Secretary[Revenue]Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.2. The Deputy Collector [Revenue]North cum Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Department,Puducherry...Respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayingfor a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to declarationissued under Section 4 in G.O.Ms.No.14, [Revenue and Disaster Management]dated 20.2.2006, and published in Gazette of Pondicherry in No.9, dated28.2.2006, and the Declaration issued under Section 6 of Land AcquisitionAct in G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 22.5.2006 and published in Gazette ofPondicherry in No.23, dated 6.6.2006 and quash the same.For Petitioners :Mr. K. Sukumaran in WP 6889 of 2006Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Advocate for Mr. D. Krishnakumar for WP Nos. 27402 & 48687/2006Mr. P. Sathish in WP No. 36954 Mr. S.A. Hafiz in WP No. 37189 Mr. V. Raghavachari in WP No. 42934For Respondents:Mr. T. MurugesanGovernment Pleader (Pondicherry)COMMON ORDERThe issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same,hence, they are disposed of by this common order.2.The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are asfollows:-The lands of the petitioners herein were sought to be acquired by therespondents by invoking the urgent provisions of Land Acquisition Act (ActI of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of providinghouse sites to Tsunami affected victims dispensing with the enquiry underSection 5-A of the Act thereby the petitioners were deprived of theirvaluable right to make objections against the acquisition of their landsand there is no real urgency as on the date of the issuance ofnotification. There are vast vacant poromboke lands available, butwithout acquiring it, they sought to acquire the lands of the petitioners.In some of the petitioners lands, fruit bearing trees, coconut grove,palmirah trees etc., were raised and that their lands are situate withinthe prohibited distance of costal area where houses cannot be built. 3.Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioners in WP No. 27402 & 48687 of 2006 argued that the petitionersare the owners of the land to an extent of 0.23.10 hectares comprised inT.S. No.A/15/25 of Pondicherry Village, which is the only source of theirlivelihood; that during September 2005, the respondents visited theproperty of the petitioners for an inspection and the petitioners alsoobjected to the same by submitting representations, but no reply wasreceived; that the petitioners also appeared for the enquiry and submittedtheir objections on 19.05.2006; that on 26.05.2006, again, the petitionerswere asked to appear for an enquiry under Section 9 (2) of the Act and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordingly, the petitioners also appeared and submitted their objections,but the same was not considered; that during the course of hearing, thepetitioners came to know that the respondents have issued the notificationunder Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 in G.O. Ms. No.32dated 22.05.2006 dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Acton the ground that there is an urgency in acquiring the lands forrehabilitation of victims of Tsunami at an early date; that Tsunami causedmassive destruction on 26.12.2004, whereas, the respondents have issuedthe notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in G.O. Ms. No.14 only on20.02.2006; that mere existence of urgency or unforseen urgency though isa condition precedent for invoking Section 17(4), that by itself is notsufficient to direct the dispensation of the Section 5-A inquiry. Itrequires an opinion to be formed by the Government concerned that alongwith the existence of such urgency or unforeseen emergency there is also aneed for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry, which is absent in thiscase; that the adjacent lands comprised in Survey Nos. 15/4, 15/5, 15/26were deleted but chosen to acquire only the lands of the petitioners; that80% compensation is required to be paid or deposited as contemplated underSection 17 (3) (A) of the Act, which was not done in this case and prayedfor allowing of the writ petitions. In support of this contention,learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reportedin i)(Union of India and others v. Krishan Lal Arneja and others) AIR2004 SC 3582 wherein in Para No.17, it was held thus:- "17. Section 17 confers extraordinary powers onthe authorities under which it can dispense with thenormal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Actin exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot belightly resorted to except in case of real urgencyenabling the Government to take immediate possession ofthe land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. Apublic purpose, however laudable it may be, by itselfis not sufficient to take aid of Section 17 to use thisextraordinary power as use of such power deprives alandowner of his right in relation to immovableproperty to file objections for the proposedacquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiryunder Section 5-A of the Act. The authority must havesubjective satisfaction of the need for invokingurgency clause under Section 17 keeping in mind thenature of the public purpose, real urgency that thesituation demands and the time factor i.e. whethertaking possession of the property can wait for aminimum period within which the objections could bereceived from the landowners and the inquiry underSection 5-A of the Act could be completed. In otherwords, if power under Section 17 is not exerci sed, thevery purpose for which the land is being acquiredurgently would be frustrated or defeated. Normallyurgency to acquire a land for public purpose does notarise suddenly or overnight but sometimes such urgencymay arise unexpectedly, exceptionally orextraordinarily depending on situations such as due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earthquake, flood or some specific time-bound projectwhere the delay is likely to render the purposenugatory or infructuous. A citizen’s property can beacquired in accordance with law but in the absence ofreal and genuine urgency, it may not be appropriate todeprive an aggrieved party of a fair and justopportunity of putting forth its objections for dueconsideration of the acquiring authority. Whileapplying the urgency clause, the State should indeedact with due care and responsibility. Invoking urgencyclause cannot be a substitute or support for thelaxity, lethargy or lack of care on the part of theState administration."The above decision was relied on by the learned Senior counsel for thepetitioner to say that gross delay or lapse on the part of the acquiringauthority or in the absence of any material to show subjectivesatisfaction is no ground to invoke the urgency clause. 4.Mr. Hafiz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.37189 of 2006 submitted that the petitioner's land in T.S. No.B/17/91/2 isa developed one; that the layout was approved on 29.08.2000 and theproperty is provided with electricity, water and drainage connection,besides that mutation was effected and patta was also issued; that therespondents not mentioned the name of the petitioner in the acquisitionproceedings but passed the award in the name of the erstwhile land owner;that the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act withoutvalid reasons would render the acquisition proceedings invalid and prayedfor allowing of the writ petition.5.Mr. Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPNo. 36954 of 2006 submitted that the petitioner's property is aresidential house in S.No.A/15/32/2; that the adjacent property are openland and playground, which are not acquired by the respondents. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner also adopted the argument of the othercounsel in respect of the alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisionsof the Act by the respondents.6.Mr. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inWP No. 42934 of 2006 submitted that the petitioner is the owner of theproperty in Survey Nos. 122/5 and 122/9 and 122/10 of PuranakuppamVillage; that the said lands are fertile lands wherein the petitionershave raised more than 10000 fruit yielding coconut trees, teak wood andother fruit bearing trees; that the lands of the petitioners are sought tobe acquired by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act therebythe respondents have attempted to by-pass the normal course of hearing;that though Tsunami stated to have hit the villages on 26.12.2004, therespondents have invoked the urgency clause for providing house sites onlyon 05.10.2006, thus, the action of the respondents in seeking to acquirethe lands by invoking the urgency clause is motivated and malafide; thatthe alleged beneficiaries to whom the house sites are to be provided arealready owning property worth Rs.10 to 20 lakhs and they do not requirethe beneficial arm of the State at all; that the property adjoining landsto an extent of 20 hectares in Sl.No.12 to 34 are located at a higher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ level and there are no standing trees and the land owners are also willingto part with their lands, but those land are not sought to be acquired bythe respondents; that these facts were brought to the notice of therespondents by letter dated 09.10.2006, but the same is not disposed oftill date; that invoking the urgency clause is totally uncalled for andunwarranted and prayed for allowing of the writ petition. 7.Mr. Sukumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPNo. 6889 of 2006 contended that the petitioner's land in S.No.A/24/69/2and that the invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act isagainst Law; that there is a delay of 14 months in invoking the provisionsof urgency clause for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of theAct; that the respondents, having waited for 14 months, it cannot be saidthat there existed an urgency in this case; that the notification underSection 4 (1) of the Act was issued just prior to the elections to securevote banks; that the notifications under Section 4 (1) and 6 were notissued in accordance with the Act; the modes of publication prescribedunder the Act have not been complied with; that the proposed lands aresituated within 200 meters from High Tide Line that too in the 'Nodevelopment zone" as per the Coastal Regulation Zone notification where noconstruction activity is permitted; that no prior environmental clearancecertificate has been obtained; that respondents have taken policy decisionnot to acquire grove for providing residence which is deliberatelyviolated in this case.8.On behalf of the petitioners, the below mentioned decisions wererelied on. i)(Union of India v. Mukesh Hans) AIR 2004 SC 4307, wherein theHonourable Supreme Court in Para No.32, held thus:- " 32. A careful perusal of this provision whichis an exception to the normal mode of acquisitioncontemplated under the Act shows that mere existence ofurgency or unforeseen emergency though is a conditionprecedent for invoking Section 17(4), that by itself isnot sufficient to direct the dispensation of theSection 5-A inquiry. It requires an opinion to beformed by the Government concerned that along with theexistence of such urgency or unforeseen emergency thereis also a need for dispensing with Section 5-A inquirywhich indicates that the legislature intended theappropriate Government to apply its mind beforedispensing with Section 5-A inquiry. It also indicatesthat mere existence of an urgency under Section 17(1)or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(2) would notby itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-Ainquiry. If that was not the intention of thelegislature then the latter part of sub-section (4) ofSection 17 would not have been necessary and thelegislature in Sections 17(1) and (2) itself could haveincorporated that in such situation of existence ofurgency or unforeseen emergency automatically Section5-A inquiry will be dispensed with. But then that isnot the language of the section which in our opinion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requires the appropriate Government to further considerthe need for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry inspite of the existence of unforeseen emergency. Thisunderstanding of ours as to the requirement of anapplication of mind by the appropriate Government whiledispensing with Section 5-A inquiry does not mean thatin each and every case when there is an urgencycontemplated under Section 17(1) and unforeseenemergency contemplated under Section 17(2) exists thatby itself would not contain the need for dispensingwith Section 5-A inquiry. It is possible in a givencase the urgency noticed by the appropriate Governmentunder Section 17(1) or the unforeseen emergency underSection 17(2) itself may be of such degree that itcould require the appropriate Government on that verybasis to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-Abut then there is a need for application of mind by theappropriate Government that such an urgency fordispensation of the Section 5-A inquiry is inherent inthe two types of urgencies contemplated under Sections17(1) and (2) of the Act." The above decision was relied on to say that the need for applicationof mind by appropriate government is inherent in urgency contemplatedunder Section 17 (1) as well as unforseen emergency under Section 17 (2).If the authority is not appraised of all necessary and relevant factsbefore he took a decision, the order, dispensing with the enquiry underSection 5-A suffers from non-application of mind. ii)(Union of India v. Deepak Bhardwaj) (2004) 13 SCC 85 wherein theHonourable Supreme Court, in Para No.5 and 6, it was held thus:- 5. Further, the High Court held that this casecannot be said to be a matter of grave urgency andthere is total absence of material for a decision todispense with Section 5-A. If the Government cannotensure that inquiry be expeditiously held by theCollector under Section 5-A, it has to blame itself andit cannot thrust the adverse consequences in thisbehalf on the landowners by depriving them of theirrights guaranteed under Section 5-A. Further, settingup of a growth point is a part of process ofdevelopment of rural areas by creating necessaryinfrastructure. Such works keep going on as the societygrows and these are long-term measures. In fact, thatis why the span has been kept as twelve years in theinstant case. 6. The reasons recorded by the High Court forquashing the notification issued under Sections 17(1)and (4) cannot be faulted with. This does not requirefurther discussion in view of the correspondenceproduced on record. This aspect has been properly dealtwith by the High Court and it has become final. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that there is totalabsence of material for a decision to dispense with the enquiry underSection 5-A of the Act, hence, the reasons recorded by the High Court forquashing the notification cannot be faulted with.9.Mr. Murugesan, learned senior counsel and Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents in all these writ petitions has advancedcommon argument reiterating the contents of the separate and commoncounter and submitted that acquisition proceedings is sought to beinitiated for the purpose of rehabilitating the Tsunami affected personsafter making preliminary inspection by the Lieutenant Governor, ChiefMinister and Land Acquisition Officers along with the Surveyors and thelands are found fit for construction of house sites to the said affectedpersons; that the approval for invoking the emergency provision was givenby the Lt. Governor and immediately, the notification under Section 4 (1)of the Act was published in leading newspapers by dispensing with theenquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter the declaration underSection 6 of the Act was issued; that in some of the petitioners land,coconut trees are there but numbers are inflated; that in the lands of thepetitioner in WP No. 42934 of 2006, about 629 trees are available; in thelands of the petitioner in WP No. 6889 of 2006, 66 coconut trees areavailable which is evident from the report submitted by the DeputyCollector; that the Government has taken a policy decision to cut only asmall number of the trees, that too if hindrance to the construction and amajor number of trees will not be disturbed besides that they have decidedto plant five trees for every single tree which is being cut and so farone lakh saplings were planted; that there is no motive or malafide actionin initiating the acquisition proceedings; that the Tsunami hit the costalareas on 26.12.2004 and the rescue and relief operations itself took aboutthree months for the administration and in the meanwhile, the Governmentthought it necessary to rehabilitate the surviving victims permanently,therefore, a high level committee was constituted by the Chief Ministerfor formulation of a permanent rehabilitation measure and consequentlyG.O. Ms. No.29 dated 15.03.2005 was issued for regulating the constructionof permanent houses; that the process of initiating acquisitionproceedings required multiple meetings to be held under the Chairmanshipof Lt.Governor/Chief Minister with different groups of people andparticipation of representatives of public and village panchayat etc.,that the technical committee consisting of Chief Town Planner, Director ofFisheries, Fisherman Welfare, Deputy Collector and Joint Project Directorwas constituted as per G.O. Ms.NO.101 dated 17.08.2005 for identificationof lands and in the meantime, general election for Puducherry LegislativeAssembly was announced by the Election Commission of India and model codeof conduct was in force from 01.03.2006 to 20.05.2006, hence, the entireacquisition process was kept in abeyance and on conclusion of the generalelections on 21.05.2006, the acquisition proceedings have been continuedagain, therefore, the question of delay in invoking the urgency provisiondoes not arise; that the urgency cannot be considered taking into accountof the event but only the requirement; that the Lt. Governor along withthe Chief Minister and others have personally visited the petitionmentioned lands; that out of 8 villages, the lands identified foracquisition were in Solai Nagar, Vaithikuppam and Kurusukuppam, hence,invoking urgent provisions, notification under Section 4 (1) and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ declaration under Section 6 of the Act were made as mentioned below:- Date of ApprovalNotification U/sec. 4(1)Declaration U/sec. 6P-5 Solai Nagar (N)GO MS No.14 dt.20.02.2006GO Ms No.32 dt.22.05.2006Nagar (Additionalland)GO Ms.74 dt. 15.09.2006To be issuedP-5B Solai Nagar (S)GO Ms.15 dt. 20.02.2006 GO Ms. 23 dt. 28.02.2006P6 Vaithikuppam – IGO Ms.16 dt. 20.02.2006 GO Ms No.24 dt.28.02.2006Vaithikuppam – IIGO Ms.17 dt. 20.02.2006 GO Ms.25 dt. 28.02.2006P-7 KurusukuppamGO Ms.18 dt. 20.02.2006 GO Ms.22 dt. 28.02.2006The above said details show that the time taken for processing theland acquisition was very short as in five cases it was only 8 daysbetween 4 (1) notification and 6 declaration, in the case of Solai Nagaronly, it took 3 months, which is also very lesser considering thestatutory limit of one year; that even the said period of three months wasnecessiated because of the discussion with the villagers, who requested todrop the acquisition in respect of temple land; thus, there is no delay atall in invoking the urgency provision, hence, the averment that theurgency clause was invoked after lapse of 14 months is absolutely withoutany merit; that the petition mentioned properties are within CRZ II zonewhere re-construction is permissible in as much as that area lies withinthe habitation site and on the land-ward side of the existing roads; thatalready notification mentioning the area and survey numbers were issued byGovernment of Pondicherry in G.O. Ms. No.18/93 Hg dated 31.12.1993classifying CRZ-II where construction activities are permitted; that in sofar as the petitioner in WP No. 27402 of 2006 is concerned, possession wastaken already, the lands of the petitioner in WP No. 36954 is not taken,the possession of the lands of the petitioner in WP No. 37189 of 2006 wastaken; that the possession of the lands of the petitioner in WP No. 42934of 2006 is not taken, thus, in entire lot 1/10 lands are concerned the sixwrit petitions have been filed, the remaining 9/10 lands are concerned,there is no objection from the land owners in which 2/3 extentconstructions were made; that in respect of the lands covered in thesewrit petitions, the Government of Maharashtra have offered to construct2000 house sites at free of costs; that because of the interim orderpassed by this Court, all the development activities were paralysed andprayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. In support of thiscontention, the learned Government Pleader relied on the below mentioneddecisions:- i)(Mohan Singh and others vs. International Airport Authority ofIndia and others) (1997) 9 SCC 132 wherein in Para No.12, the HonourableSupreme Court held thus:- " 12. It is seen that Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) have expressly mentioned the phrase ‘hereinafter’,while similar language does not find place in Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17(4). Equally Section 17(4) does not mention the lastof the dates of the publication, i.e., the three stepsrequired under Section 4(1) or Section 6(2). In otherwords, the object of Section 17 appears to be that whenthe Government exercises the urgency power underSection 17(1) or emergency power under Section 17(2),they form the opinion that the land is needed forpublic purpose. If the possession of the land is neededurgently or immediately they are required to have thenotification under Section 4(1) published in theOfficial Gazette and within a gap of one day to makethe declaration under Section 6 and have the samepublished under Section 6(1). Thus, what is mandatoryis publication of the notification under Section 4(1)in the Gazette. Thereafter within a gap of a daypublication of the declaration under Section 6(1) ismandatory. Thereby, the public purpose becomesconclusive, as envisaged under sub-section (3) ofSection 6 and the Collector is empowered to takeimmediate possession of the land for the said publicpurpose. 13. The question is: Whether it is mandatory insuch a situation, i.e., after the publication of thenotification in the Gazette publication in two localnewspapers and giving of notice of the substance of thenotification at convenient places in the locality, toawait the exercise of power under Section 17(4)? Aftergiving due and deep consideration to the respectivecontentions raised by the learned counsel, we are ofthe considered view that though the compliance of thesethree steps required under Section 4(1) is mandatory,for the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) it isnot necessary that all the three steps should becompleted before making the declaration under Section 6(1) and have it published for directing the Collectorto take possession under Section 17(1) or 17(2). Whatis needed is that there should be a gap of time of atleast a day between the publication of the notificationunder Section 4(1) and of the declaration under Section6(1). Herein, we dispose of the controversy and agreewith Shri Shanti Bhushan that the date of thenotification and declaration published as mentioned inthe Gazette is conclusive but not the actual date ofprinting in the Gazette. This interpretation of ourswould serve the public purpose, namely, the officialfunctions are duly discharged. When the land isurgently needed under Section 17(1), notice underSection 9(1) would be given to the owner and stepswould be taken to and resume its possession after theexpiry of 15 days. If it is needed urgently underSection 17(2), even without waiting for 15 days onissue of notice under Section 9(1) to the owner, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appropriate Government would direct the Collector totake possession of the land immediately. If thepublication in the newspapers and in the locality isalso insisted upon as preliminary to the exercise ofpower under Section 17(4) which are mandatoryrequirements and until last of them occurs, theimmediate or urgent necessity to take possession of theland under Section 17(1) or 17(2) before making theaward would be easily defeated by dereliction of dutyby the subordinate officers or by skillful maneuver.The appropriate Government is required to take thedecision for acquisition of the land and to considerthe urgency or emergency and to make the notificationunder Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 andhave them published in the Gazette that the landacquired under Section 4(1) is needed for publicpurpose; they become conclusive under Section 6; and togive direction to the Collector to take its possession.The publication in the newspapers and giving of noticeof the substance of the notification at the convenientplaces in the locality are required to be done by theCollector authorised by the Government under Section 7and his subordinate staff. If dereliction of duty isgiven primacy, delay deflects public justice to meeturgent situation by the acts of subordinate officersfor any reason whatsoever. Until that is done and thelast of the dates occurs, Government would be unable toact swiftly for the public purpose to take immediatepossession envisaged under sub-section (1) or (2) ofSection 17 and they would be easily defeated orfrustrated. "In the above decision the Honourable Supreme Court held that whenurgency provision is invoked, publication of Section 4 (1) notification inthe newspapers and in the locality cannot be insisted upon as preliminaryto exercise power under Section 17 (4). Declaration under Section 6 mustbe published after publication of notification under Section 4 (1) thoughsigned earlier. If possession of the land is immediately required, theauthorities have to publish the notification under Section 4 (1) of theAct in the official gazzette and after a gap of one day make declarationunder Section 6 and have the same published under Section 6 (1). Thoughthe compliance of three steps under Section 4 (1) is mandatory, for theexercise of power under Section 17 (4) it is not necessary that all thethree steps should be completed before making the declaration underSection 6 (1). ii)(Meerut Development Authority, Meerut vs. Smt. Pista Devi andothers) AIR 1986 SC 2025 wherein in Para-5 and 6, it was held by theHonourable Supreme Court thus:- "In the circumstances of the case it cannot besaid that the decision of the State Government inresorting to Section 17(1) of the Act was unwarranted.The provision of housing accommodation in these days https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has become a matter of national urgency. We may takejudicial notice of this fact. Now it is difficult tohold that in the case of proceedings relating toacquisition of land for providing house sites it isunnecessary to invoke Section 17(1) of the Act and todispense with the compliance with Section 5-A of theAct. Perhaps, at the time to which the decision inNarayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra relatedthe situation might have been that the schemes relatingto development of residential areas in the urbancentres were not so urgent and it was not necessary toeliminate the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Theacquisition proceedings which had been challenged inthat case related to the year 1963. During this periodof nearly 23 years since then the population of Indiahas gone up by hundreds of millions and it is no longerpossible for the Court to take the view that theschemes of development of residential areas do not“appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminatesummary inquiries under Section 5-A of the Act”. InKasireddy Papaiah ( died ) v. Government of A.P.Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh dealing with the problem of providinghousing accommodation to Harijans has observed thus: “That the housing conditions of Harijans all overthe country continue to be miserable even todayis a fact of which courts are bound to takejudicial notice. History has made it urgent that,among other problems, the problem of housingHarijans should be solved expeditiously. Thegreater the delay the more urgent becomes theproblem. Therefore, one can never venture to saythat the invocation of the emergency provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act for providing housesites for Harijans is bad merely because theofficials entrusted with the task of takingfurther action in the matter are negligent ortardy in the discharge of their duties , unless ,of course , it can be established that theacquisition itself is made with an obliquemotive. The urgent pressures of history are notto be undone by the inaction of the bureaucracy.I am not trying to make any pontificpronouncements. But I am at great pains to pointout that provision for house sites for Harijansis an urgent and pressing necessity and that theinvocation of the emergency provisions of theLand Acquisition Act cannot be said to beimproper, in the absence of mala fides , merelybecause of the delay on the part of somegovernment officials.” 6. What was said by the learned Judge in thecontext of provision of housing accommodation to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Harijans is equally true about the problem of providinghousing accommodation to all persons in the countrytoday having regard to the enormous growth ofpopulation in the country. The observation made in theabove decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh isquoted with approval by this Court in Deepak Pahwa v.Lt. Governor of Delhi even though in the above decisionthe Court found that it was not necessary to sayanything about the post-notification delay. We are ofthe view that in the facts and circumstances of thiscase the post-notification delay of nearly one year isnot by itself sufficient to hold that the decisiontaken by the State Government under Section 17(1) and(4) of the Act at the time of the issue of thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Act was eitherimproper or illegal. " In the above decision, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Courtthat the decision of the State Government in resorting to Section 17(1)and dispensing with compliance of Section 5-A was warranted as thejudicial notice of the fact that provision of housing accommodation inthese days has become a matter of national urgency can be taken.Similarly, post notification and pre-notification delay of nearly one yearwould not by itself be sufficient to render the decision taken by thestate Government under Section 17 (1) and sub-section (4) at the time ofissuance of notification under Section 4 (1) improper or illegal. iii)(Chameli Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) AIR 1996SC 1051 wherein in Para-15 " 15. The question, therefore, is whetherinvocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4)dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A is arbitraryor is unwarranted for providing housing constructionfor the poor. In Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (SCCat p. 290), a Constitution Bench of this Court hadupheld the exercise of the power by the State underSection 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section5-A for the planned development of Delhi. In Pista Devicase this Court while considering the legality of theexercise of the power under Section 17(4) exercised bythe State Government dispensing with the inquiry underSection 5-A for acquiring housing accommodation forplanned development of Meerut, had held that providinghousing accommodation is national urgency of whichcourt should take judicial notice. The pre-notificationand post-notification delay caused by the officerconcerned does not create a cause to hold that there isno urgency. Housing conditions of Dalits all over thecountry continue to be miserable even till date and isa fact of which courts are bound to take judicialnotice. The ratio of Deepak Pahwa case was followed. Inthat case a three-Judge Bench of this Court had upheldthe notification issued under Section 17(4), even https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ though lapse of time of 8 years had occurred due tointer-departmental discussions before receiving thenotification. That itself was considered to be a groundto invoke urgency clause. It was further held thatdelay on the part of the lethargic officials to takefurther action in the matter of acquisition was notsufficient to nullify the urgency which existed at thetime of the issuance of the notification and to holdthat there was never any urgency. In Jage Ram v. Stateof Haryana this Court upheld the exercise of the powerof urgency under Section 17(4) and had held that thelethargy on the part of the officers at an early stagewas not relevant to decide whether on the day of thenotification there was urgency or not. Conclusion ofthe Government that there was urgency, though notconclusive, is entitled to create weight. In DeepakPahwa case this Court had held that very often personsinterested in the land proposed to be acquired may makerepresentations to the authorities concerned againstthe proposed writ petition that is bound to result inmultiplicity of enquiries, communications anddiscussions leading invariably to delay in theexecution of even urgent projects. Very often delaymakes the problem more and more acute and increasesurgency of the necessity for acquisition. In RajasthanHousing Board v. Shri Kishan (SCC at p. 91), this Courthad held that it must be remembered that thesatisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective oneand that so long as there is material upon whichGovernment could have formed the said satisfactionfairly, the Court would not interfere nor would itexamine the material as an appellate authority. InState of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh (SCC at p.590),this Court had held that the Government was entitled toexercise the power under Section 17(4) invoking urgencyclause and to dispense with inquiry under Section 5-Awhen the urgency was noticed on the facts available onrecord. In Narayan Govind Gavate case a three-JudgeBench of this Court had held that Section 17(4) cannotbe read in isolation from Section 4(1) and Section 5-Aof the Act. Although 30 days from the notificationunder Section 4(1) are given for filing objectionsunder Section 5-A, inquiry thereunder unduly getsprolonged. It is difficult to see why the summaryinquiry could not be completed quite expeditiously.Nonetheless, this Court held the existence of primafacie public purpose such as the one present in thosecases before the Court could not be successfullychallenged at all by the objectors. It further heldthat it was open to the authority to take summaryinquiry under Section 5-A and to complete inquiry veryexpeditiously. It was emphasised that: (SCC p. 148,para 38) “... The mind of the officer or authority concerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has to be applied to the question whether there isan urgency of such a nature that even the summaryproceedings under Section 5-A of the Act should beeliminated. It is not just the existence of anurgency but the need to dispense with an inquiryunder Section 5-A which has to be considered.” 16. It would thus be seen that this Courtemphasised the holding of an inquiry on the factspeculiar to that case. Very often the officials, due toapathy in implementation of the policy and programmesof the Government, themselves adopt dilatory tactics tocreate cause for the owner of the land to challenge thevalidity or legality of the exercise of the power todefeat the urgency existing on the date of takingdecision under Section 17(4) to dispense with Section5-A inquiry. 17. It is true that there was pre-notification andpost-notification delay on the part of the officers tofinalise and publish the notification. But those factswere present before the Government when it invokedurgency clause and dispensed with inquiry under Section5-A. As held by this Court, the delay by itselfaccelerates the urgency: Larger the delay, greater bethe urgency. So long as the unhygienic conditions anddeplorable housing needs of Dalits, Tribes and the poorare not solved or fulfilled, the urgency continues tosubsist. When the Government on the basis of thematerial, constitutional and international obligation,formed its opinion of urgency, the court, not being anappellate forum, would not disturb the finding unlessthe court conclusively finds the exercise of the powermala fide. Providing house sites to the Dalits, Tribesand the poor itself is a national problem and aconstitutional obligation. So long as the problem isnot solved and the need is not fulfilled, the urgencycontinues to subsist. The State is expending money torelieve the deplorable housing condition in which theylive by providing decent housing accommodation withbetter sanitary conditions. The lethargy on the part ofthe officers for pre and post-notification delay wouldnot render the exercise of the power to invoke urgencyclause invalid on that account. 18. In every acquisition by its very compulsorynature for public purpose, the owner may be deprived ofthe land, the means of his livelihood. The Stateexercises its power of eminent domain for publicpurpose and acquires the land. So long as the exerciseof the power is for public purpose, the individual’sright of an owner must yield place to the larger publicpurpose. For compulsory nature of acquisition, sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides payment of solatiumto the owner who declines to voluntarily part with thepossession of land. Acquisition in accordance with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ procedure is a valid exercise of the power. It wouldnot, therefore, amount to deprivation of right tolivelihood. Section 23(1) provides compensation for theacquired land at the prices prevailing as on the dateof publishing Section 4(1) notification, to bequantified at later stages of proceedings. Fordispensation or dislocation, interest is payable underSection 23(1-A) as additional amount and interest underSections 31 and 28 of the Act to recompensate the lossof right to enjoyment of the property from the date ofnotification under Section 23(1-A) and from the date ofpossession till compensation is deposited. It wouldthus be clear that the plea of deprivation of right tolivelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable. The Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision held that pre-notification and post notification delay caused due to the lethargy on thepart of officers of the Government would not render exercise of power ofinvoking urgency clause invalid. iv)(State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh) AIR 1995 SC 2480 whereinin Para-5 and 6 it was held thus:- "5.The next question is whether the Governmentwould be justified in exercising its power underSection 17(4) and dispense with the inquiry underSection 5-A of the Act. Mandatory injunction issued bythe civil court to demolish the compound wall and torestitute possession to the respondent had to becomplied with. There is thus urgency. The publicpurpose was obvious as the compound was required to beretained to protect the safety of the office. Theobject of Section 5-A enquiry was to show whether therewas no public purpose or the land was not suitable orsome other lands may be acquired. All these relevantand related facts are redundant due to the facts of thecase. 6. So, on the facts and in the circumstances, theGovernment was justified in exercising their powerunder Section 17(4) invoking urgency clause anddispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A. By nostretch of imagination it could be said that there wasno public purpose, for which inquiry under Section 5-Acould be made and decision taken. In that view of thematter, the High Court was clearly in error in allowingthe writ petition and committed a manifest error of lawin quashing the notification under Section 4(1) anddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act." This decision was relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents to say that the object of Section 5-A enquiry was to showwhether there was no public purpose or the land was not suitable or someother lands may be acquired. All these relevant and related facts areredundant when public purpose was obvious.10.This Court carefully considered the argument of counsel on bothsides and perused the material records placed. In all these writpetitions, almost the below mentioned grounds are canvassed namely pre andpost-notification delay vitiated the acquisition proceedings, there is noneed for dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, there isno material placed for decision to dispense with the enquiry under Section5-A of the Act, the respondents, having waited for 14 months from the dateof Tsunami could have waited for another 30 days and complete the enquiryunder Section 5-A of the Act, in some of the petitioner's land coconuttrees, fruit bearing trees were available, which was not taken intoaccount by the respondents and that some of the lands of the petitionersare situate within a distance of 500 meters from high tide line whereconstruction activities are prohibited. 11.The respondents have replied that immediately after Tsunami hitthe area, Lt. Governor of Union Territory of Pondicherry, Chief Minister,Land Acquisition Officer along with the Surveyors have made fieldinspection of the lands and conducted multiple meetings with all groups ofpeople, representatives, technical committee was constituted whichidentified the lands; that the respondents issued G.O. Ms. No.29 dated15.03.2005 thereby a policy decision for re-construction of permanenthouse sites, infrastructure facilities for the tsunami affected peoplewere taken; that in the said Government Order it is stated that the matterhas been discussed at length at various level on 23.02.2005 and Relief andRehabilitation Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Lt.Governor, Pondicherry and thereafter, a policy decision was arrived atthereby it was decided to avail the offer of NGOs, Charitable Trusts,Public and Private Sector Undertakings, Corporate bodies to constructhouses which are to be disaster resistant based on the type, design andlayout supplied by the Government, continuous quality checked by teams,allotment of house site to the beneficiaries on rational basis retainingthe right of the land with the Government, giving inalienable right to theTsunami affected families. There would not be any religious activities orpromotion of any ideology allowed during the construction of the houses.An empowered committee was also constituted to consider the originalproposal and modification etc., On 17.08.2005, G.O. Ms. No.101 was issuedthereby a technical committee was constituted consisting of Chief TownPlanner, Deputy Collector Revenue (South), Director of Science andTechnology and Environment and Superintending Engineer to study the fieldcondition. The committee was conferred with the power to study the fieldcondition of the lands for the construction of houses with reference tothe norms of Coastal Regulation Zones, examine the acquisition of theexisting housing area by payment of appropriate compensation throughnegotiation and reconstruction of houses with the reduced land area butwith the same plinth area of the old house in not more than 300 sq.ft.,that the Survey shall include regularisation of legal and illegalconstruction of houses in private lands etc., The committee had metseveral groups of habitants and submitted its report during December 2005to the Lt. Governor and Chief Minister. Thereafter, notification under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 20.02.2006 and declaration underSection 6 was made on 28.02.2006. In the meantime, election forPuducherry Legislative Assembly was notified by the Election Commission ofIndia and model code of conduct came into force from 01.03.2006 to20.05.2006. After the conclusion of general election, in some cases,notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 22.05.2006. Subsequently,local body elections were ordered to be conducted by the Division Bench ofthis Court and the same model code was re-introduced. The said detailssatisfactorily explain the pre-notification delay.12.In the argument of the learned Senior counsel for therespondents, the details relating to notification under Section 4 (1) andthe declaration under Section 6 of the Act were demonstrated. It isstated that except Solai Nagar (additional lands) in other placesdeclaration under Section 6 was made within 8 days in respect of the landof some of the petitioners. So far as Solai Nagar is concerned, it hasbeen explained that because of the interim stay granted by this Court, nodeclaration under Section 6 was made. Even otherwise, the pre-notification and post notification delay does not create a cause to holdthat there is no urgency. Followed (Chameli Singh and others vs. State ofU.P. and another) AIR 1996 SC 1051. 13.The other argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that therespondents, having delayed for 14 months ought to have grantedopportunity of hearing to the land owners as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. No doubt, Section 5-A is the only provisions which providesopportunity to the land owners to file their objections within 30 days ofpublication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and suchobjection has to be determined after giving the objectors an opportunityof hearing, either in person or any one authorised by him or through apleader. Whether urgency existed or not is a matter solely for thedetermination of the Government and ordinarily, it is not open forjudicial review, however, the opinion will have to be formed afterapplication of mind to the problem and not mechanically. The opinion mustbe based on relevant facts. The opinion should not have been formedarbitrarily or capriciously or with a malafide or oblique motive.Followed (Mathur Village Residents Welfare Association vs. State of TamilNadu) 1992 1 Law Weekly (Volume 109) 383. 14.In the instant case. Urgency powers under Section 17 (4)dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A has been invoked. In thenotification under Section 4 (1) of the Act issued by the respondents, itis mentioned as follows:-"Consequent to the Tsunami devastation, theGovernment of Pondicherry embarked upon a massiverehabilitation programme for the Tsunami victims in thePondicherry and Karaikal Districts. Providing housesto the people who were rendered homeless and areresiding within the dangerous limits from the High TideLine was the foremost task of the government.......Whereas it appears to the Government ofPondicherry that the lands specified in the schedulebelow are needed for a public purpose viz., forrehabilitation and re-settlement of families affected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by Tsunami in Solai Nagar (North) Hamlet in PondicherryRevenue Village by invoking urgency provision, noticeto the effect is given to all whom it may concerned inaccordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) ofSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (CentralAct 1 of 1894) and the Lieutenant-Governor, Pondicherryhereby authorises the Deputy Collector (Revenue)-LandAcquisition Officer (North), Pondicherry, his staff andworkmen who exercise the powers conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the said Act. In Sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, the Lieutenant-GovernorPondicherry directs that in view of the urgency of thecase, the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shallnot apply to this case."15.From the above, it is clear that it is not a case of theGovernment not forming an opinion at all with regard to the urgency. Itis also not a case of the Government not applying its mind to the problem.It is also not the case of the opinion getting formed on no facts at allor forming opinion on facts not relevant or the opinion getting formedmotivated by malafides or oblique motives, thus, the issue is answerednegatively against the petitioners. 16.The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (MeerutDevelopment Authority, Meerut vs. Smt. Pista Devi and others) AIR 1986 SC2025 held in a case relating to construction of houses to Adi-dravidarsthat the provisions of housing accommodation in general in these days hasbecome a matter of national urgency, the Courts can also take judicialnotice of the said fact, hence, it is difficult to hold that in the caseof proceedings relating to acquisition of lands for providing house site,it is not necessary to invoke Section 17 (1) of the Act and dispense withthe compliance of Section 5 of the Act. 17.It is to be remembered that Section 6 declaration was made inrespect of the land belonging to four writ petitioners within a period ofeight days and one writ petition in three months and in another writpetition, no declaration was made since this Court granted interim order,hence, this Court is of the view that there is no undue or unexplaineddelay with reference to processing of the matter. In this context, itwould be useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Courtin the decision rendered in Deepak Pahwa etc. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi andothers (AIR-1984-SC-1721), wherein in Para-8 it was held as under:- "8. The other ground of attack is that if regardis had to the considerable length of time spent oninterdepartmental discussion before the notificationunder Section 4(1) was published, it would be apparentthat there was no justification for invoking theurgency clause under Section 17(4) and dispensing withthe enquiry under Section 5A. We are afraid, we cannotagree with this contention. Very often personsinterested in the land proposed to be acquired makevarious representations to the concerned authorities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the proposal acquisition. This is bound toresult in a multiplicity of enquiries, communicationsand discussions leading to delay in the execution ofeven urgent projects. Very often the delay makes theproblem more and more acute and increases the urgencyof the necessity for acquisition. It is, therefore, notpossible to agree with the submission that mere prenotification delay would render the invocation of theurgency provisions void." In the above said judgment, a contention was raised that considerabletime was spent on interdepartmental discussion prior to notification underSection 4(1) and there was no justification for invoking the urgencyclause under Section 17(4) and dispensing with the enquiry under Section5A, the Honourable Supreme Court held that very often persons interestedin the land proposed to be acquired make various representations to theconcerned authorities against the proposal acquisition, which results inmultiplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions leading to delayin the execution of even urgent projects. Very often the delay makes theproblem more and more acute and increases the urgency of the necessity foracquisition, it is, therefore, not possible to agree with the submissionthat mere pre notification delay would render the invocation of theurgency provisions void.18.The above said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court wasfollowed by me in WP No. 47855 of 2007 dated 24.04.2007 (S. Dhandapani andothers vs. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department and others) which was reportedin Manu/TN/2007/1037 this Court, wherein in Para-12 and it was held thus:-"12.Section 17(4) provides that in cases wherethe appropriate Government has come to the conclusionthat there exists an urgency or unforeseen emergency asrequired under sub sections (1) or (2) of Section 17,it may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shallnot apply and if such direction is given then 5Aenquiry can be dispensed with and declaration may bemade under Section 6 on publication of 4(1)notification possession can be made. Enquiry underSection 5A is a very valuable right of a person whoseproperty is sought to be acquired and he should haveappropriate and reasonable opportunity of persuadingthe authorities concerned that the acquisition of theproperty belonging to that person should not be made.If the Government decided to take away this minimalright then its decision to do so must be based onmaterials on record to support the same and bearing inmind the object of Section 5A.14.In so far as the ground of attack thatconsiderable period has lapsed between the introductionof the scheme and the present notification and hence,there was no justification for invoking the urgencyclause, dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned, the petitioners filed number of casesagainst the authorities, which resulted in amultiplicity of enquiries, communications anddiscussions leading to delay in the execution of thisurgent project and the said delay would not render theinvocation of the urgency provisions void, as has beenheld in Deepak Pahwa etc. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi andothers (AIR-1984-SC-1721) cited supra."19.An argument was advanced by Mr. Sukumaran, learned Counselappearing for the petitioner in WP No. For Petitioner in WP 6889 of 2006and Mr. P. Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 36954that the respondents have completely ignored the coastal regulation zonenotification, which categorically prohibits putting up new constructionupto 500 meters from high tide line and the lands now sought to beacquired are classified as CRZ No.I. In the counter, the respondents havecategorically denied that the lands covered in these writ petitions fallswithin CRZ II and therefore the re-construction is permissible in as muchas that area lies within the habitation site and on the land-ward side ofthe existing roads and certain lands of some writ petitioners comes underCRZ II zone, the other petitioners lands not at all falls within theCoastal Regulation Zone. The respondents also relied on the notificationissued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 19.02.1991 issuedunder Section 3 (1) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Environment (Protection)Act, 1986 and Rule 5 (3) (d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986which contains details of the coastal area classification, development andregulation and the activities which are permissible and restricted withinthe coastal regulation zone. In the said notification, in clause 3 (2)(3) (i) it is stated thus:-"(3) (i)The coastal States and Union TerritoryAdministrations shall prepare, within a period of oneyear from the date of this notification, Coastal ZoneManagement Plans identifying and classifying the CRZareas within their respective territories in accordancewith the guidelines given in Annexures I and II of thenotification and obtain approval (with or withoutmodifications) of the Central Government in theMinistry of Environment & Forests."20.The consequential notification of the Government of Pondicherrywas issued in G.O. No.18 of 1993, Housing dated 31.12.1993, in which inAnnexure I, the norms for Regulation of Activities is mentioned in Clause6 (2) which is extracted below:-"CRZ-II – (1) Buildings shall be permitted neitheron the seaward side of the existing road (or roadsproposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Planof the area) nor on seaward side of existing authorisedstructures. Buildings permitted on the landward sideof the existing and proposed roads/existing authorisedstructures shall be subject to the existing local Townand Country Planning Regulations including the existingnorms of FSI/FAR. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ .........ANNEXUREPONDICHERRY REGION.....C.R.Z.IIMuthialpetR.S. Nos. 27 pt., 28 pt., 30 pt., 31 pt., 35 pt.,36, 37, 38 pt., 39 pt., 40 to 45 pt., 50 pt., 51 to 90,91 pt., 92 pt., 101 pt., 102, 103, 104, 105 pt., 106pt., 107, 108 pt., 144 pt., 145, 146, 147 pt., 148,149, 152 pt., 153 pt., 178 pt., 179 pt., 183 pt., 184pt., 186 pt., 188 to 223." In support of this contention, the respondents further relied on theletter of the Government of Pondicherry, Department of Science andTechnology and Environment, Pondicherry addressed to the DistrictCollector, Revenue (North). The relevant portion of the said letter isextracted below:- "With reference to the above subject it isinformed that the proposed lands to be acquired forconstruction of permanent houses for Tsunami victims atSolai Nagar (North) in R.S. Nos. 51/10 pt, 51/9 pt,59/3 pt, 59/8, 59/10 pt, 59/13pt and 59/9 and at SolaiNagar (South) in R.S. Nos. 68/2 and 70/2 falls underCRZ – II as per Pondicherry Costal Zone ManagementPlan. Construction of houses in CRZ-II is apermissible activity as per Costal Regulation Zone(CRZ) Notification, 1991. Clearance shall be obtainedfrom the Town and Country Planning Department beforestarting any construction activity in the above saidland.The lands proposed to be acquired for constructionof permanent houses for Tsunami victims at Kurusukuppamin R.S. No.194/3 and at Nallavadu, Poornakuppam Villagein R.S. No.122 does not fall under Coastal RegulationZone as per Pondicherry Coastal Zone Management Planand it is not covered by the Coastal Regulation Zone(CRZ) Notification, 1991 norms.The copy of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)notification, 1991 and gazette Notification of theGovernment of Puducherry vide G.O.Ms. No.18/93/Hg.Dated 31.12.1993 are enclosed for reference."21.Considering the said records, this Court is of the view that thelands at Solai Nagar South and North comes under CRZ II and the land inKurusukuppam and Poornankuppam do not fall in Coastal Regulation Zone asper the Pondicherry Coastal Zone Management Plan.22.In so far as the standing trees in the petitioners lands areconcerned, it is submitted by the respondents that the lands covered in WPNos. 42934 and 6889 of 2006, 629 and 66 trees respectively are available.It is also replied by the respondents that the Government had taken a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision to remove few trees leaving major number of trees undisturbed, inaddition to that the respondents submitted that for felling of one tree,they have proposed to plant 5 saplings and further went on to say that sofar they have planted one lakh saplings in Tsunami affected area ofPondicherry. The contention of the respondents that the process ofconstructing house site for the fisherman has to be necessarily made nearthe coastal area and in such event the lands sought to be acquired are theonly suitable land and that the said construction is for a noble cause andfor that purpose felling of few trees were necessiated and that forfelling of one tree, they have planted five saplings is justified.23.Arguments were also advanced by the counsel for the petitionersthat alternative as well as adjacent vacant lands are available, but therespondents have not chosen to acquire the same. The suitability of thelands for the public purpose can be judged only by the Government. Whenthe Government identified certain lands as suitable, this Court cannotsubstitute its view, hence, the said argument is rejected as untenable.24.The petitioner in WP No. 37189 of 2006 has averred in theaffidavit that his name is not found mentioned in the notification underSection 4 (1) of the Act. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decisionreported in (Ahuja Industries Ltd vs. State of Karnataka and Others)(2003) 5 SCC 365 held that the acquisition officers need not conductroving enquiry about the ownership of the property. If the name of thepurchaser is not yet entered in the record-of rights, then non-service onsuch person does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings, hence, the saidaverment is also rejected as unsustainable in law.25.The other averment that 80% of compensation amount is notdeposited by the respondents in terms of Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act isconcerned, it was replied by the learned Senior counsel for therespondents that the compensation amount would be deposited in accordancewith law, which is recorded.26.In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions aredevoid of merits, liable to be dismissed and accordingly they aredismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Chief Secretary Union Territory of Pondicherry Pondicherry2. The Secretary Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Pondicherry3. The Additional Secretary (Revenue) Land Acquisition Officer Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Pondicherry4. The Deputy Collector [Revenue] North cum Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Department, Puducherry.5. The Land Acquisition Officer,Deputy Collector-Revenue,Saram, Pondicherry-3.6. The secretary, Government of Pondicherry, Revenue Department, Pondicherry.7. The Sub District Collector [Revenue] cum Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Department, Pondicherry.8. The Addl. Secretary[Revenue], Govt. of Pondicherry,Union of India, Pondicherry.+ 1 CC To M/s.S.A.Hafiz, Advocate SR NO.45565+ 2 CCs To M/s.K.Sukumar, Advocate SR NO.45484+ 1 CC To M/s.D.Krishnakumar, Advocate SR NO.45586+ 1 CC To M/s.D.Krishnakumar, Advocate SR NO.45587+ 2 CCs to Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor forPondicherry, SR Nos.45568, 45569+ 1 CC To Mr. V.Raghavachari Advocate SR NO. 45600WP Nos. 6889/2006 etc., batchgk[co]gp/6.8.