High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:20.01.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWRIT APPEAL NO.4041 OF 2004and WAMP.No.7618 of 20041.N. Radhakrishnan (died)2.N. Gunesekaran3.N. Kanagarathinam (died)4.N. Samivel5.N. Sampathkumar6.N. Kathirvel7.R. Kumaresan8.S. Senthilvelan9.R.Kanakavalli10.R. Santhakumari11.K. Kannammal12.K. Kavitha13.K. Sangeetha14.K. Priyadharshini(Appellants 9 and 10 substituted asL.Rs. of the deceased first respondentand appellants 11 to 14 substituted asL.Rs. of the deceased third respondentvide Order of court dated 26.10.2006made in WAMP.No.1599 and 1600 of 2006.).. Appellants/Petitioners.vs.1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. BySecretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of EnergyFort St. George, Madras 600 009.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Collector's Office Compound Salem... Respondents/Respondents.Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kanakaraj made in W.P.No.1499 of1997 dated 01.10.2004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.1499/1997: Petition presented to this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for theentire records relating to the G.O.Ms.No.728 P.W.[Electricity] dated30.3.83 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 20.4.1983 being thenotification under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act and also theconsequential declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act covered inGO.Ms.NO.10 [Department of Energy] dated 13.1.1997 on the file of therespondents pertaining to the acquisition of the lands belonging to thepetitioners in S.No.92/4 of Annadanapatti Village, Salem Taluk, SalemDistrict, quash the notification.For appellants: Mr. D. ShivakumaranFor respondents: Mr. K. Elango Spl. Govt., Pleader....JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court delivered by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2004made in W.P.No.1499 of 1997, the writ petitioners, whose lands are underacquisition, preferred the above writ appeal.2. Heard Mr. D. Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the appellantsand Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader for therespondents.3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed beforethe learned single Judge. 4. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, there is no need torefer all the factual details, except required for the disposal of theappeal. According to the petitioners, the lands belonging to theirfamily were sought to be acquired for the purpose of expansion of 230 KVSub Station and for construction of residential quarters for the staffof Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioners filed W.P.No.13331 of1985, to quash the said proceedings ending with declaration underSection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [in short, "the Act"]. Thesaid writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to theGovernment, first respondent therein, for fresh disposal in accordancewith law. Thereafter, declaration under section 6 of the Act was madeon 13.1.1997. Then, the petitioners filed the writ petition, W.P.No.1499of 1997 praying to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) ofthe Act dated 30.03.1983 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Actdated 13.01.1997. 5. The main ground of attack was that the time gap betweennotification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of theAct is beyond the prescribed period of three years (as it stood then).However, the learned Judge, without adverting to the said aspect,dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the unsuccessfulpetitioners have filed the present writ appeal.6. The only question to be considered in this appeal is, whetherthe declaration made under Section 6 of the Act which was published in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government Gazette dated 16.01.1997, is within the prescribed periodof three years (as it stood then) from the date of 4(1) notification ornot?7. The particulars furnished by the petitioners as well as thelearned Special Government Pleader show that Section 4(1) notificationwas approved in G.O.Ms.No.728, Public Works (Electricity) Department on30.03.1983 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Governmentgazette on 20.04.1983 and in the locality, publication by tom-tom waseffected on 25.04.1983. Enquiry under Section 5-A and 3(b) read withSection 55 (1) of the Act was conducted on 07.06.1984. TheGovernment approved Section 6 declaration in G.O.Ms.No.1434 on21.08.1985 and the same was published in the Government gazette on18.09.1985; in the newspapers on 24.09.1985 and in the locality on27.12.1985. In W.P.No.13331 of 1985, this Court granted interim stay on24.12.1985 and the same was modified and made absolute with regard todispossession alone on 16.06.1987. On 19.01.1996, this Court allowedthe said writ petition, WP.No.13331 of 1985 and remanded the matter backto the Government, first respondent therein for fresh disposal. On18.10.1996, the first respondent directed the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Salem, second respondent herein, to initiate a fresh 5-Aenquiry. On 13.12.1996, 5-A enquiry notice was sent to the petitioners.The petitioners submitted their objections through their counsel byregistered post with acknowledgment due on 24.12.1996 and 5-A enquirywas conducted on 30.12.1996. The objections of the petitioners wereover-ruled by proceedings dated 04.01.1997 and the same was sent to thefirst respondent for approval. Section 6 declaration was published inthe Gazette and in the Tamil daily "Dinakaran" on 16.01.1997. On05.02.1997, this Court admitted W.P.No.1499 of 1997 and also grantedinterim stay. Ultimately, on 01.10.2004, the said writ petition wasdismissed.8. In this regard, it is useful to refer the details furnished bythe learned Special Government Pleader, which reads as under:1The time gap between the date ofpublication under section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act(locality publication by tom-tom) and the date of filing ofthe writ petition viz.,25.4.1983 to 25.12.19852 years 7 months 29 days2The Time gap from the date ofdisposal of the writ petitionand the date of freshdeclaration under Section 6 ofthe Act viz., 19.01.1996 to16.01.1997. 11 months 21 daysTotal time gap between 4(1)notification and 6 declarationincluding the period of stay. 3 years 7 months 20 daysFrom the above, it is clear that the declaration under Section 6 of theAct, which was published in the gazette on 16.01.1997, is undoubtedly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ beyond the prescribed period of three years (as it stood then).Therefore, we sustain the argument of the learned counsel for theappellants. As said earlier, these relevant aspects were not noticed bythe learned Judge. On this ground, the acquisition proceeding is liableto be quashed; accordingly, it is quashed. However, the respondents arefree to proceed afresh, if they so desire in accordance with law.The writ appeal is allowed with the above observation. No costs.Consequently, connected WAMP., is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.khTo1.The Secretary to the Government, of Tamil Nadu Department of EnergyFort St. George, Madras 600 009.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Collector's Office Compound Salem.+ 1 CC To Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate SR NO. 3611+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 3573 W.A.No.4041 of 2004akm[co]gp/24.1