Judgment :- The petitioners challenge G.O.Ms.No.977, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1990, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, 12.9.1990 and quash the publication issued under Sec.37(2) of the Town and Planning Act 1971, in so far as the petitioners are concerned in respect of their comprised in Survey Nos.107 and 136 in No.156, in Mamallapuram Village, Chingleput Chengai-Anna District. 2. The short facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition follows: The subject matter of the lands are situate in Mamallapuram village and Mamallapuram celebrated port-town, drawing a large number of tourists and pilgrims. The growth population and the influx of tourists were considered by the New Town Development Authority, Mamallapuram, the second respondent herein and since the existing bus a small one the second respondent suggested that the lands in S.Nos.107 and 136 suitable for constructing a new bus-stand. The New Town Development Authority, acting accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning Act, 1971 prepared New Town Development Plan and submitted the same to the Government. Sec.49 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides for the enforcement of the so prepared from the date of consent accorded by the Government to the Plan. When Member Secretary, Mamallapuram New Town Development Authority requested Government for acquiring the above mentioned lands for construction of Bus Stand, the Town Development Plan for Mamallapuram New Town was consented by Government under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.24 of the Town and Country Planning Act in G.O.Ms.No.968. Housing Urban Development, dated 29.9.1989, and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 15.11.1989 as required under Sec.26 of the Town and Country Planning 1971. The two survey numbers in question have been reserved for Bus Stand in the above said New Town Development Plan. This was selected by the Task Force, chaired by the Chief Secretary to Government on 21.3.1988. The Committee of Town and Country Planning Board has sanctioned a sum ofRs.12.11 lakhs for the acquisition of land for the Bus Stand. In view of the provisions under Sec37(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, a proposal was sent by the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Government for acquiring above mentioned lands under Sec.37(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. In view of the provisions under Sec37(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, a proposal was sent by the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Government for acquiring above mentioned lands under Sec.37(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act. After verifying the facts as to whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with, a declaration under Sec.37(2) has been approved by the Government by the impugned Government Order. The declaration as published in the Gazette reads as follows: ".....No.II(2)HOU/4461/90-Whereas, a notice was published with Mamallapuram New Town Development Authority Notification No.VI(1) 1964 of 1989, dated the 30th September, 1989, at page 597 of Part Vl-Sec.1 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the November, 1989 of preparation of a New Town Development Plan for Mamallapuram Town under Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu 35 of 1972) and the Government of Tamil Nadu having been satisfied that the lands specified in the schedule below have to be acquired for a public purpose, viz., for formation of a bus-stand, and it having already been decided that the entire amount of compensation to be awarded for the lands is to be paid out of the public revenues, the following declaration is issued under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec.37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 1971 (Tamil Nadu 35 of 1972): DECLARATION Under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares that the lands specified in the schedule below and measuring 3.09 0 hectares, be the same, a little more or less, needed for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of a bus-stand as required in the Town Development Plan of Mamallapuram by the New Town Development Authority, Mamallapuram, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengai District. A plan of the lands is kept at the District Collector’s Office, Kancheepuram and be inspected at any time during office hours......" It is alleged in the affidavit that the exact location of the proposed bus-stand from the tourist attraction spots like shore temple and other monuments will be about 6 to 7 is further alleged that the tourist interest will be seriously affected if the new acquisition lands took place, that there are other more convenient and vacant sites situate on side of the shore temple road as well as at the very entrance of the village viz., poramboke land and other lands. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the proposal to locate bus stand in the lands to be acquired is incorrect, and that the public interest will be affected if the proposed new bus-stand is put up in the lands to be acquired. It is also that when there is a draft report pending consideration, the Government cannot invoke provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that the impugned notice purporting to be issued under Sec.37(2) of the Tamil Nadu 37 of 1972, is illegal. It is further stated affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that when a draft proposal is pending draft contains a proposal to locate a new bus-stand in a particular survey number before draft has become final cannot be done and that the notification under Sec.37(2) cannot treated as a final one. It is also stated that if the lands are to be acquired under the Acquisition Act, there are certain procedures to be followed viz., notification under of the Act and the enquiry under Sec.5-A-of the Act, that such a course of action contemplated under Sec.37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that Sec.37 of the Act is arbitrary. It is also stated that the impugned notification is bad in the ground that there is a colourable exercise of power. It is also stated that principles natural justice are violated and that the lands are taken over without considering objections of the petitioners and that it is an infringement of Art.300-A of the Constitution India. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 23.4.1991. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is also stated that principles natural justice are violated and that the lands are taken over without considering objections of the petitioners and that it is an infringement of Art.300-A of the Constitution India. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 23.4.1991. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. The counter affidavit that the New Town Development Authority, acting in accordance with the provisions Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, under which it was constituted, a New Town Development Plan and submitted the same to the Government. Sec.49 Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 has been referred to in the affidavit. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that a bus stand will have be located to allow free entry of the buses from all directions, not to pollute areas around monuments, prohibit criss-crossing of buses and other heavy vehicles in the monument zone. It is stated that Sec.36 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act provides that required, reserved or designated in the Plan prepared under the said Act shall be deemed be land needed for public purposes within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act.l894 provides for the acquisition of the said lands as modified in the Tamil Nadu Town Country Planning Act, 1971, and as such declaration under the act has been issued Government in G.O.Ms.No.977, Housing and Urban Development Department, 17.8.1990, which is impugned in this writ petition. It is also claimed in the counter that the petitioners themselves wanted to dispossess the lands comprised in S.Nos.107 136 in No. 156, Mamallapuram Village and that the petitioners cannot contend that the in question cannot be acquired. It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that the between the site selected and the fartherest monument is less than one kilometer the said distance can be travelled by foot by anyone and that the petitioners’ contention the contrary is not correct. It is further claimed that objections were called for and views of the public were taken note of before finalising the site for the bus stand. It is further claimed that objections were called for and views of the public were taken note of before finalising the site for the bus stand. further claimed that the interest of the tourists will never be affected if the New Development Authority locates the bus stand in those lands mentioned above and alternate site suggested by the petitioners are not suitable for the location of the bus It is further stated that the notice of preparation of a New Town Development Plan Mamallapuram was published on 15.11.1989 and a notification under Sec.37 of the Town Development Plan for Mamallapuram was published on 15.11.1989. It is further that Sec.37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides consent of the Government for preparation of plan that in the instant case the preparation of the plan was sanctioned by the Government that all formalities have been complied with by the Government. It is also stated that objections and suggestions of the public who are affected under Sec.27 of the Act considered and that they have been processed before the Committee on 19.3.1990. 5. Though many points are taken in the affidavit, Mr.N.Ganapathy, the learned appearing for the petitioners after referring to various provisions of the Act, restricted arguments only to two points, the first being that no opportunity has been given petitioners and that there was no publication made. The learned counsel points out that acquisition is being for local authority under Sec.3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entire cost of the land acquisition cannot come from public revenue. The learned counsel points out the declaration made under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act and contends funds ’ cannot come from public revenue as separate funds are provided under the Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, in this case. The learned counsel relies upon decision of Kanakaraj, J. in Narayana Rajoo v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1991)1 L. W. wherein the learned Judge has followed earlier decisions with regard to the validity declaration made under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquisition lands for the Housing Board. The learned counsel further contends that the declaration in this case has to be set aside purely on this ground alone. 6. The learned counsel further contends that the declaration in this case has to be set aside purely on this ground alone. 6. Per contra, Mrs.N.Kalaiselvi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents contends that the provisions of the land acquisition act have been fully complied with and that the publication in the newspapers has also been made. It is further stated under Sec.26 of the Act, publication has been made in Tamil daily ‘Makkal Kural English daily ‘in The Hindu’, and that wide publicity has also been given to the notification the notice board of the authority, District Collector, the Township Committee office etc. further stated that in response to the advertisement made, the petitioners have submitted applications seeking declaration of their lands as residential instead of public purpose that they have been duly considered. It is also stated by the learned counsel respondents that a careful reading of Secs.36 and 37 of Town and Country Planning 1971 will prove that the acquisition can be resorted to within three years from the notification under Sec.26 of the Act and that in this case the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated once publication has been published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette. 7. I have considered the arguments of Mr.N.Ganapathy, the learned counsel appearing the petitioners and of Mrs.N.Kalaiselvi, the learned Government Advocate appearing respondents. Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, 1971’) provides notice of the preparation of the regional plan, master plan or the new town development plan, and it reads as follows: “ ......(1) As soon as may be, after the appropriate planning authority has received consent of the Government under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.24 to the publication of the notice, appropriate planning authority shall publish the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and in leading daily newspapers of the region of the preparation of the regional plan, the master plan or the new town development plan, as the case may be, and the or places where copies of the same may be inspected, inviting objections and suggestions writing from any person in respect of the said plan within such period as may be specified the notice; Provided that such period shall not be less than two months from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 2. 2. After the expiry of the period mentioned in Sub-sec.(1), the appropriate planning authority shall allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including representatives of Government departments and authorities, who have made a request for being so and make such amendments to the regional plan, the master plan or the new development plan, as the case may be, as considers proper and shall submit the said with or without modifications to the Government..... ” Sec.27 of the Act, 1971 provides the notice of the preparation of the detailed development plan which reads as follows: “ ....(1) As soon as may be, after the local planning authority has received the consent Director under sub-sec. (2) of Sec.25 to the publication of the notice, the local planning authority shall publish the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and in leading daily newspapers of the region of the preparation of the detailed development plan and place or places where copies of the same may be inspected, inviting objections, suggestions in writing from any person in respect of the said plan within such period as be specified in the notice; Provided that such period shall not be less than two months from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. (2) After the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-sec.(l), the local planning authority allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including representatives Government departments and authorities, who have made a request for being so heard make such amendments to the detailed development plan as it considers proper and submit the said plan with or without modifications to the Director.....” Sec.28 of the Act, 1971 provides for approval of the Government and Sec.30 speaks coming into operation of regional plan, master plan and new town development plan. 8. Chapter IV of the Act 1971 provides the power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act and Sec.36 of the Act reads as follows: “.....Any land required, reserved or designated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan, as the case may be, shall be deemed be land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, (Central Act I of 1894) and may be acquired under the said Act as modified in the manner provided in this Act..... ” Sec.37 of the Act 1971 gives power to purchase or acquire lands specified in development plan which reads as follows: “....(1) Where after the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette preparation of a regional plan, master plan, as the case may be, any land is required, reserved or designated in such plan, the appropriate planning authority may, either into agreement with any person for the acquisition from him by purchase of any land may be acquired under Sec.36 or make an application to the Government for acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894); Provided that if the value of such land exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the appropriate planning authority shall not enter into such agreement without the previous approval of Government. (2) On receipt of an application made under sub-sec.(l), if the Government are satisfied the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose specified therein, may make a declaration to that effect in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, in the manner provided in Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), in respect of said land. The declaration so published shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, be deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said Sec.6 of the said Act; Provided that no such declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice Sec.26 or Sec.27 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such notice. (3) On the publication of such declaration, the Collector of the district within whose jurisdiction the land is situate shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of such under the said Act, and the provisions of that Act shall, so far as may be, apply to acquisition of the said land with the modification that the market value of the land shall the market value prevailing on the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Government Gazette under Sec.26 or Sec.27, as the case may be..... ” 9. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, the provisions of the of 1971 have been strictly complied with. ” 9. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, the provisions of the of 1971 have been strictly complied with. A careful reading of Sec.37 of the Act, extracted above, will prove that the acquisition can be resorted within three years from the date of notification of the Sec.26 the Act, 1971 after the notice of the preparation of the Regional Plan, Master Plan or Town Development Plan and after it received the consent of the Government. On the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioners have also given their objections against acquisition and they have been duly considered. As such, I am not able to accept arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no opportunity been given to the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this ground, falls to the ground. 10. With regard to another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, necessary to refer certain provisions of the Act. Sec.39 of the Act gives the compensation. Chapter VIII provides for finance and the State Town and Country and Development Fund is created. Sec.65 of the Act states that every planning shall maintain a separate Fund called “The Planning and Development Fund Account sec (2) of Sec.65 of the Act reads as follows: “ The Fund account may be initially established by the planning authorities with the advances or loans obtained from the Government or from the State Town and Planning and Development Fund......” From a reading of the provisions mentioned above, it is clear that the Government empowered to acquire lands under the provisions of the Act, Act 37/72, and that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act need not be followed. Chapter IV of the Act for acquisition. However, if an acquisition is made by enforcing Chapter IV of the act, the acquisition for the local authorities as defined under Sec.3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act. Sec.3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows: “......The expression ‘ local authority ” includes a town planning authority by (whatever called) set up under any law for the time being in force.... Sec.3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows: “......The expression ‘ local authority ” includes a town planning authority by (whatever called) set up under any law for the time being in force.... “ The relevant portion of Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with which we are concerned, reads as follows: ” 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose: (1) Subject to the provisions Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering report, if any, made under Sec.5-A, sub-sec.(2) that any particular land is needed public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under signature of a Secretary, to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify orders (and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, sub-sec.(1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (whenever required) under Sec.5-A, sub-sec. (2); .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority..... “ A reading of the above mentioned sections clearly shows that the acquisition in this for local authority, even though Chapter IV of the Town and Country Planning Act, invoked for acquiring the lands for the purpose of constructing a bus-stand. declaration made under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been extracted earlier portion of this order, clearly shows that the entire compensation of the acquisition paid out of the public revenue. As rightly pointed out by Mr.N.Ganapathy, learned counsel the writ petitioners, on this ground alone, the declaration made under Sec.6 of the Acquisition Act is bad in law. In a batch of writ petitions in Madan Sundararaj v. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Housing Urban Development Department, Madras-9 and others, W.P.Nos.1326 of 1982 etc. (as he then was) held as follows: “......It is no consolation to say that public revenue would mean either the revenue State of the revenue of a local authority. (as he then was) held as follows: “......It is no consolation to say that public revenue would mean either the revenue State of the revenue of a local authority. Such an argument ignores the well settled position in law that a local authority is a local self-government being the creature of statute having own seal and perpetual succession. In other words, the State revenues cannot be equated the revenues of the local authority. That is why the Parliament in its wisdom created division in the case of an acquisition under Part II and categorically stated (i) wholly or partly out of public revenue and (ii) some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. If the argument of the learned Advocate General is accepted, it will render the second limb of the second Proviso to Sec.6 (1) of the Act, namely, or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority other words, such an unwisdom cannot be attributed to the Parliament." The learned Judge has further held as follows: ".....If, in law there is a clear distinction between the revenues of the State as opposed to revenue of a local authority, it is that which should form part of the declaration in view of legal requirement under the second proviso to Sec.6(1) of the Act. That certainly is not position here and, therefore, the declaration is not in accordance with the proviso to Sec.6(1) of the Act....." This has been followed by Kanakaraj, J. in Narayana Rajoo v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 1 L.W. 476 . In Madan Sundararaj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Housing and Urban Development Department, Madras others, W.P.Nos.1326 of 1982 etc. Mohan, J., (as he then was) has followed the decision Valjibhai v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1890. In that case it is held that even assuming that the funds of the Corporation consist only the moneys which have been provided by the State of Bombay it is difficult to appreciate they could be regarded as part of the public revenue. In my view, money coming out public revenue whether invested, loaned or granted to the second respondent herein would change their original character and become the funds or assets of the second respondent herein. In my view, money coming out public revenue whether invested, loaned or granted to the second respondent herein would change their original character and become the funds or assets of the second respondent herein. As such, the terms of proviso are not satisfied in this case, because under impugned declaration, the entire amount of compensation has to be paid out of public revenue. As I have already stated, the second respondent has got separate funds under Chapter VIII of the Act, 1971. In view of that, I am not able to accept the contention of learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that Sec.43 of the Act, 1971 provides for making advance to the New Town Development Authority and as such in this case amount is advanced to the second respondent by the Government and that the declaration not bad in law, with respect following the judgment of this Court on this issue by Mohan, (as he then was) in Madan Sundararaj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Housing and Urban Development Department, Madras others, W.P.Nos.1326 of 1982 etc., and agreeing with Kanakaraj, J. in Narayana Rajoo The State of Tamil Nadu (1991)1 L.W. 476 , the impugned declaration in this case is aside as no other point is argued before me. The writ petition will stand allowed. It may open to the State to take proceedings afresh rectifying the defects. There will be no order to costs. Petition allowed.