Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 170 (MAD)

K. Devaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu and another

2000-02-08

T.MEENA KUMARI

body2000
ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.758, Housing and Urban Development, dated 3.5.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.288 of the same department dated 4.6.1992, and quash the same. 2. Sec.4(1) Notification was issued on 3.5.1991. The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no notice was served on the petitioner in 5A enquiry and the petitioner could not file the objections and he has neither appeared for the enquiry under Sec.5-A not filed his objections. The learned counsel has further argued that the Land Acquisition proceedings have to be vitiated as Sec.45 of the Land Acquisition Act prescribes the mode of service of notice. Relying on the above provisions, the counsel has argued that the above provision is mandatory and the authorities have to serve the notice by fixing the copy on the out door of the house and also by registered post. He has further argued that as the authorities have failed to comply with the above provisions, there is no compliance of the mandatory provision of Sec.45 and affixture of notice under Sec.4-A at the couspicuous place on the land is not a mode of service and it is not in compliance with Sec.45. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that all the further proceedings taken are vitiated. He has relied upon a decision reported in Ramiah Moopanar v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Madras and another, (2000)1 M.L.J. 385 : (2000)1 C.T.C. 117 , wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has held that: “Failure to comply with mandatory provisions does not amount to service of notice to petitioner. Petitioner lost opportunity of filing valid objection under Sec.5-A. Acquisition proceedings are invalid and quashed”. 3. The learned Government Pleader basing on the records argued that as the petitioner refused for the service of notice, the notice has been affixed on a conspicuous place on the land. He has further argued that under Sec.6, notification has been issued on 4.6.1992 and award has been passed on 10.10.1994. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further argued that there is no need for interfere in the land acquisition proceedings as the petitioner himself has refused to have the service of the notice. 5. He has further argued that under Sec.6, notification has been issued on 4.6.1992 and award has been passed on 10.10.1994. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further argued that there is no need for interfere in the land acquisition proceedings as the petitioner himself has refused to have the service of the notice. 5. Sec.45 of the Land Acquisition Act prescribes the mode of service of notice which reads as follows: “Sec.45. Service of notices: (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under Sec.4, by an officer therein mentioned and, in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the collector or the Judge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him; and, if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the court-house, and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired; Provided that, if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Secs.28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressee’ receipt”. 6. It is not in dispute that even though the petitioner has refused to have the service of the notice, the authorities are bound to serve the notice either by fixing copy of the notice on the outer door of the house or by registered post. It is not in dispute that the above provisions have not been complied with by the authorities. It is not in dispute that the above provisions have not been complied with by the authorities. Under the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this court has already held in a reported judgment in Ramiah Moopanar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000)1 M.L.J. 385 : (2000)1 C.T.C. 117 , that the failure to comply with mandatory provisions under Sec.45 does not amount to service of notice to petitioner and as the petitioner has lost the opportunity of filing the valid objections under Sec.5-A and land Acquisition proceedings are invalid and quashed. 7. Following the above judgment, it has to be held that the authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions and the land acquisition proceedings are liable to be vitiated and accordingly they are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh. Consequently, W.M.P.No.24077 of 1992 is closed.