Judgment :- Common Order: Writ Petition No.19427/1996 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.(3D) No.61 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 18. 1995, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part.II Sec.2 (Supplement) and the Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in G.O.(3D) No.66, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 10. 1996 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (extraordinary) part.II Section 2 dated 10. 1996, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the acquisition of lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey Nos.23/1 and 23/3 situated at Chettihalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District measuring to an extent of 52. 5 hectares. 2. W.P.No.2336/1997 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned orders of the 1st respondent-Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu land Acquisition Act in G.O.(3D) No.61 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 18. 1995 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette part.II Sec.2(Supplement) dated 20.9.95 and the Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in G.O.(3D) No.66, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 10. 1996 published in Tamial Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part.II Sec.2 dated 10. 1996, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the acquisition of lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.23/1-A situated in Chettihalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District measuring an extent of 0.98.5 hectares. 3. W.P.No.1193/2001 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to Sec.4(1) notification issued in G.O.Ms.(3D) No.61, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 18. 1995 published in Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette No.37-A dated 20.9.95 and Sec.6 Declaration in G.O.Ms. (3D) No.66, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 10. 96 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.521 dated 10. 1995 published in Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette No.37-A dated 20.9.95 and Sec.6 Declaration in G.O.Ms. (3D) No.66, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, dated 10. 96 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.521 dated 10. 96, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the acquisition of lands of the petitioner comprised in S.No.23/3 of an extent of 0.54.0 hectares in 43, Chettihalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 4. W.P.No.19427/1996: The petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands to an extent of 1. 52.5 hectares in S.No.23/1 and 23/3 situated in Chettihalli village, palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The 1st respondent issued a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, in which the lands of the petitioner were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of providing house-sites to the people belonging to Vannar of Palacode Taluk. The petitioner sent her objections to 4(1) notification. A notice under Sec.5A of the Act was received by the petitioner to attend an enquiry to be held on 112. 1995. Again the petitioner sent objections on 112. 95 and thereafter she participated in the enquiry on 195. The 1st respondent issued a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act and challenging the 4(1) notification and the Sec.6 declaration this W.P.No.19427/1996 has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Pleader for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules was not at all followed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated on this ground alone. He further stated that the Sec.4(1) notification is to be quashed on the ground of vagueness as it does not set out the specific purpose for which the land was acquired. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the entire procedure contemplated under the Act was strictly complied with and as such there is no merit in this writ petition. Insofar as not complying with the Rule 4(b) of the Rules is concerned, it is stated by the learned Addl. Govt. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that the entire procedure contemplated under the Act was strictly complied with and as such there is no merit in this writ petition. Insofar as not complying with the Rule 4(b) of the Rules is concerned, it is stated by the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader that the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, ADW, the 3rd respondent herein is the Land Acquisition Officer and is acquiring body on behalf of the Government and therefore the objections of the petitioner need not be forwarded to the Most Backward Classes Welfare Department for remarks. 8. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. 9. In G.O.(3D)No.61, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 18. 1995, the Government issued the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Central Act No.1/1894 that the lands specified in the notification are situated in Chettihalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District are needed for a public purpose to wit for the provision for house-sites for Vannar of Palacode village. The petitioners name were found in the notification as owner of the land for an extent of 0.98.5 hectares in S.No.23/1 and another extent of 0.54.0 hectares in S.No.23/3. Thus a total extent of 52. 5 hectares of the petitioners land is sought to be acquired for the public purpose of providing house-sites to Vannar of Palacode village. Thus the public purpose is very clear in the notification and it cannot be contended that Sec.4(1) notification is vague. 10. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules was not at all followed vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings. For the sake of convenience, Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition rules is extracted as under: "Rule 4:-(a)If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected. (b)If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section(1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form B to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or Company. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or Company. The department or Company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. (c)On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector, or a person authorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land." 11. From the above it is very clear that if any objections are received from a person interested in the land within the time, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice to the objector as well as the department requiring the land. The copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to the said Department and that Department may file a statement by way of an answer to the objections and the department may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. On the date of enquiry, the Collector shall hear the objector and the representative of the department and record the evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land. On completion of the enquiry as stated above, the Collector shall submit the case for the decision of the Government under Rule 5 of the Rules. 12. It is not in dispute that the procedure contemplated under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has not at all been complied with in the above case. It is the contention of the learned Addl.Govt. Pleader that no objections were received and even other wise as acquiring body and the requisitioning body are one and the same, Rule 4 (b) will not come into play at all. 13. I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader. 14. It has been specifically stated by the petitioner that she sent her objection on 29. 95 and another objection on 195. But the same was not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 13. I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader. 14. It has been specifically stated by the petitioner that she sent her objection on 29. 95 and another objection on 195. But the same was not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Further in the proceedings dated 10. 95 the Special Tahsildar has referred to the objections of the petitioner dated 29. 95. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner did not send any objection objecting to the 4(1) notification. The learned Addl.Govt.Pleader further contended that even if objections were received, the same need not be sent to the requisition body as the Special Tahsildar (ADW) belongs to the same department, i.e., Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department. 15. I am unable to accept this submission also. The Special Tahsildar is not the requisition department and therefore the procedure contemplated under Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules is to be followed strictly. Admittedly, it was not followed in this case and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings taken from the stage of enquiry under 5A of the Act are to be quashed. Hence keeping Sec.4(1) notification intact, the other proceedings are set aside with reference to the petitioners land. To this extent this W.P.No.19427/1996 is allowed. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.27663/96 and 23580/98 are closed. 16. W.P.No.2336/1997: The petitioner is the owner of an agricultural land to an extent of 0.98.5 hectares in S.No.23/1 situated in Chettihalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. These lands were purchased by the petitioner for valid consideration from one Mrs.Rajammal, the petitioner in W.P.No.19427/1996 by way of sale deed dated 7. 94 and registered as document No.1358/94 at SRO, Palacode. 17. The 1st respondent issued notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the people belonging to Vannar of Palacode village. The 4(1) notification was approved in G.O.(3D) No.61, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 18. 95 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 20.9.95 in which the lands of an extent of 52. 5 hectares in S.No.23/1 and 23/3 were required for the above said public purpose. It is the case of the writ petitioner that out of the total extent of 52. 95 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 20.9.95 in which the lands of an extent of 52. 5 hectares in S.No.23/1 and 23/3 were required for the above said public purpose. It is the case of the writ petitioner that out of the total extent of 52. 5 hectares in S.No.23/1 and S.No.23/3, he became the absolute owner of the lands in S.No.23/1, of an extent of 0.98.5 hectares. But her name did not find place in Sec.4(1) notification and the petitioners vendors name alone (petitioner in W.P.No.19427/1996) was found place in the 4(1) notification. Therefore she had no knowledge about the 4(1) notification and she could not object to the acquisition proceedings. It is her further case that her name has been included in the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act and even after the notification of Sec.6 declaration she did not receive any notice from the respondents as to the passing of the award. Hence she filed the above W.P.No.2336/97 for the aforesaid relief. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner purchased an extent of 0.98.5 hectares in S.No.23/1 from the erstwhile vendor who was the petitioner in W.P.No.19427/96, as early as 7. 94 itself and this fact was also informed to the respondents by the erstwhile vendors at the time of Sec.5A enquiry. Still no notice was served on her and thereby the writ petitioner was denied of making an effective objection to the land acquisition proceedings. 20. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this court reported in 1989 WLR 89 (Thanikavelu, P.C. v. The Special Deputy Collector for land Acquisition, Madras) and 2001(4) CTC 12 (Muthurajan, S. v. The State of Tamil Nadu). 21. Per contra, the leaned Addl.Govt.Pleader submitted that the entire procedure contemplated under the Central Act 1/1894 was followed by the respondents and therefore there are no merits in this writ petition. 22. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to the facts and citations. 23. The only question that arises for consideration in this W.P.No.2336/97 is whether the land acquisition proceedings are unsustainable insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned for want of notice to the petitioner. .24. 22. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to the facts and citations. 23. The only question that arises for consideration in this W.P.No.2336/97 is whether the land acquisition proceedings are unsustainable insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned for want of notice to the petitioner. .24. It is not in dispute that the lands belonging to the writ petitioner were sold by the erstwhile owner namely, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19427/96 to the writ petitioner herein as early as 7. 94. Even thought the 4(1) notification did not contain the name of the writ petitioner, her vendor informed the authorities in her objections dated 29. 95 the factum of sale of the lands of the petitioner on 7. 94. This objection was also referred to by the Spl.Tahsildar (ADW) in his letter dated 95. In spite of this information about the change in ownership as informed by the erstwhile owner, the authorities did not come forward to issue a notice to the writ petitioner who is definitely a person interested in the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore in my considered view the entire acquisition proceedings after the notification of 4(1) notification is vitiated and unsustainable. .25. In 1989 WLR 89 (cited supra) a Full Bench of this court held as follows: ."Held: If it is brought to the notice of the Collector by the erstwhile land owner or by any other person including the present owner thereof of the names of interested persons, the collector as a statutory functionary cannot decline to afford an opportunity to the person who is really interested in the land and close the enquiry. When such information is brought to the notice of the collector, it is needless to say that the principles of natural justice enjoin upon him an obligation to issue notice to the person who is found to be really interested in the land even though his name may not be found entered in the revenue records. The enquiry contemplated under S.5-A of the Act would be full and complete only when the person who is really interested in the land is put on notice. But, at the same time, it is made clear that individual notice is mandatory only to those persons whose names are found in the revenue records or who are found by the collector as persons interested on information received through reliable source." 26. But, at the same time, it is made clear that individual notice is mandatory only to those persons whose names are found in the revenue records or who are found by the collector as persons interested on information received through reliable source." 26. In the above decision, the Full Bench of this court has clearly held that when it is brought to the notice of the authorities by the erstwhile land owners about the present person interested, then an opportunity should be given to such person by following the principles of natural justice even though the names may not be found entered in the revenue records. 27. The above decision of the Full Bench of this court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and admittedly the principles of natural justice are violated by not sending the notice to the writ petitioner after the erstwhile land owner divulged the factum of sale of lands to the writ petitioner herein. .28. In 2001(4) CTC 12 (cited supra), this court held that even if the name of the person interested in the land is left out in 4(1) notification and in the event of the same is being brought to the notice of the enquiry officer under Sec.5A, such person shall also be given an opportunity to participate in the 5A enquiry since a person interested in the land is also entitled to submit his objections. 29. If the above decisions are applied to the facts of the present case, the only irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is the entire land acquisition proceedings for the lands of the petitioner are to be set aside after the publication of 4(1) notification. Therefore keeping the 4(1) notification intact the rest of the proceedings are set aside and to that extent this W.P.No.2336/97 is allowed. No costs. W.M.P.No.3891/97 is closed. 30. W.P.No.1193/01: The writ petitioner is having an extent of 0.54.0 hectares of land in Chettihalli village, Dharmapuri District, having obtained the same from his mother Rajammal (the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19427/96) by way of a settlement deed. After settling the above extent of land in his favour, his mother is holding the remaining extent of 0.78.5 hectares. He was surprised to receive a notice from 3rd respondent issued under S.9(1) and 10 of Central Act 1/1894 for enquiry for awarding compensation in respect of lands. After settling the above extent of land in his favour, his mother is holding the remaining extent of 0.78.5 hectares. He was surprised to receive a notice from 3rd respondent issued under S.9(1) and 10 of Central Act 1/1894 for enquiry for awarding compensation in respect of lands. On enquiries he came to know that Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated for his lands and also for his mothers lands and notice was issued only to his mother and not to him. Therefore he filed this W.P.No.1193/2001 for the above said relief. 31. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the writ petitioners mother settled the lands namely, an extent of 0.54.0 hectares in his favour even before the 4(1) notification and this fact was intimated to the authorities by his mother in her objections dated 29. 95. Even though her objections dated 29. 95 was referred to by Special Tahsildar in his letter dated 10. 95, no notice was issued to the writ petitioner and therefore the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated and unsustainable. 133. This contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner was not controverted by the learned Addl.Govt.Pleader for the respondents and in fact no counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents in this writ petition. In such circumstances, the decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 1989 WLR 89 (cited supra) and the decision of this court reported in 2001(4) CTC 12 (cited supra) would apply and the writ petition is to be allowed in the normal course. But considering the fact that the 4(1) notification was issued on 18. 95, gazetted on 20.9.95 and the declaration under Sec.6 was published in the Government Gazette on 10. 96, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner challenging the 4(1) notification and Sec.6 declaration cannot be granted on the ground of laches and filing the writ petition belatedly, i.e., after nearly 5 years. 95, gazetted on 20.9.95 and the declaration under Sec.6 was published in the Government Gazette on 10. 96, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner challenging the 4(1) notification and Sec.6 declaration cannot be granted on the ground of laches and filing the writ petition belatedly, i.e., after nearly 5 years. Even though it is submitted that the writ petitioner came to know about the acquisition proceedings only after he received the notice under Sec.9(1) and Sec.10 of the Land Acquisition Act in the last week of December 2004, it could not be believed by considering the fact that his mother Rajammal, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19427/96, received the notice, sent her objection and participated in the enquiry. His mother also challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.No.19427/96. In such circumstances it cannot be accepted that the writ petitioner came to know of the acquisition proceedings only in the last week of December 2004. Hence this W.P.No.1193/2001 is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P.No.1650/2001 is also dismissed. 134. In the result, W.P.Nos.19427/96 and 2336/97 are allowed as indicated above. W.P.No.1193/2001 is dismissed.