Judgment : The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing Department, dated 5. 1975 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16. 1975 and also the declaration issued under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner herein bearing S.Nos.4/lBl, 4/1B2 and 4/1B3 measuring 0.671/2 acres in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid land in question. The Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for acquisition of an extent of 146.54 acres of land in Porur village, Saidapet Taluk, for the purpose of implementation of Housing Scheme to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population for development of the area as now Ramapuram Neighbourhood Scheme. The Government caused the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.412, Housing Department, dated 5. 1975 to be published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 16. 1975. It appears that the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was also published in the village and also by beat of Tom torn. When the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has not come forward with objections to the proposed acquisition. After holding necessary enquiry, as contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act, the Government on consideration of the entire proceedings including the report of the Enquiring Authority, was satisfied that the land was suitable for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired and after having satisfied about the suitability of the land caused the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act as in G.O.Ms.No.973, Housing Department, dated 6. 1978, published on 6. 1978. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16. 1975, the substance of the Notification was published in the locality only on 112. 1978. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16. 1975, the substance of the Notification was published in the locality only on 112. 1975 and that there was an inordinate delay in causing the publication of the substance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in the locality. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity for participating in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and consequently the entire proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel further contended that in view of the fact that the Government had withdrawn large portion of the property in question, the property belonging to the petitioner should have been withdrawn from the acquisition. 4. In reply, learned Government Advocate contended that when the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette the Government caused simultaneous publication of substance of the Notification as contemplated under Sec.4 of the Act. Learned Government Advocate further contended that since the petitioner has not filed any objection with reference to the acquisition he cannot participate in the enquiry. Learned Government Advocate also contended that having regard to the policy of the Government, with reference to the exclusion of certain categories of lands, certain portions were withdrawn from the acquisition and consequently the petitioner cannot have any grievance with reference to withdrawal of some land from the proposed acquisition. However, Sec.6 declaration was issued only after having satisfied with the suitability of the land notified under Scc.4(1) of the Act and was published on 16. 1975. It is not disputed that the substance of the Notification was also published on 112. 1975. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an inordinate delay of six months in causing the publication of the substance of the Notification in the locality and hence the acquisition is vitiated. In support of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in P. Venkataraihinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing Madras-9 and two others, 1990 T.L.N.J. 264, wherein it was held that such a delay is inordinate and consequently acquisition proceedings were set aside. 6. In support of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in P. Venkataraihinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing Madras-9 and two others, 1990 T.L.N.J. 264, wherein it was held that such a delay is inordinate and consequently acquisition proceedings were set aside. 6. In reply learned Government Advocate cited the decision reported in Deepak Pahna v. Lt.Governor of Delhi, (1984)4 S.C.C. 308 : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1721, wherein it was held that publication in the Gazette and the publication of notice in the locality need not necessarily be simultaneous but contemporaneous. Though the decision reported in P.Venkataraihinam Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and Secreiaiy, Housing, Madras-9 and two others, 1990 T.L.N.J. 264, considered the decision of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that the continuity was not explained by a counter affidavit filed by the Government and consequently came to the conclusion that by reason of long delay the acquisition proceedings were vitiated. However, it is not possible to find out from the above cited decision as to whether the Notification is in relation to the smaller area or vast land like the instant acquisition. Having regard to the vast track of land sought to be acquired, learned Government Advocate contended that there is likelihood of some delay in causing publication of the substance of the Notification as contemplated under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be said to be unfounded having regard to the fact that the Notification is in relation to vast track of land. 7. With reference to the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity to participate in the enquiry held under Sec.5-A of the Act by reason of the fact that there was no notice to the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and that his name appears in Sec.4(1) Notification and consequently there won’t be any difficulty in causing the notice for enquiry being served on the petitioner. In this behalf learned Government Advocate contended that by reason of the failure to raise objections with reference to the acquisition, the petitioner was not given due notice. 8. In this behalf learned Government Advocate contended that by reason of the failure to raise objections with reference to the acquisition, the petitioner was not given due notice. 8. Sec.5-A enquiry is a statutory enquiry and the petitioner has got every right to participate in the enquiry and he should be given adequate opportunity so as to enable him to participate in the enquiry. There is no dispute in the instant case that the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry held under Sec.5-A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. The fact that the petitioner who has got every right to participate in Sec.5-A enquiry has been deprived of such opportunity vitiates the entire proceedings. The explanation offered by the Government Advocate in the stated circumstances cannot be adequate to satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice. 9. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned cannot be said to be sustainable. Hence, the impugned proceedings in so far as the petitioner’s lands are concerned is set aside. Consequently, Sec.6 declaration in so far as the petitioner’s lands are concerned is set aside. In the view that I have taken it is not necessary to go into the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. In fact, learned Government Advocate strenuously contended for sustaining the acquisition proceedings, but for the above reasons I could accept his contention. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside Sec.6 declaration in so far as the petitioner’s lands are concerned and that the petitioner is permitted to file objections with reference to the acquisition within a period of one month from this date and on receipt of such objections, the Land Acquisition Officer concerned is to forward the said representation to the Acquisitioning Department and to obtain the views of the Acquisitioning Department and on obtaining the views from the Acquisitioning Department, the Land Acquisition Officer shall hold enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner and also enabling the Acquisitioning Department to be present at the time of the enquiry and also to consider all objections that may possibly be raised by the petitioner and ultimately submit his report to the Government. On receipt of the report the Government shall consider the entire material including the report and also the objections raised by the petitioner and take a decision under Sec.6 of the Act. With this observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.