IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 27..08..2008 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice S. PALANIVELU W.A.No.1991 of 2001 Tmt.M.S. Vasundara .. Appellant Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu repd. By Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Unit III Egmore, Chennai 600008. 3. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, repd. By its Member- Secretary, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600008. .. Respondents Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order dated 19.06.2001 in W.P.No.5223 of 1991. Filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari filed mandamus calling for the records comprised in Sec.4(1) Notification issued by the first respondent and published in G.O.Ms.429 Housing and Urban Development dated 14.5.1990 and quash the said proceedings in so far as it relates to the lands belonging to the petitioner comprised in S.No.58/1 part of No.106 Koyambedu Village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk Madras and consequently drop all further acquisition proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for M/s. Satish Parasaran For Respondents : Mr. Arumugam Addl. Government Pleader [for R-1 and R-2] Mr. D. Veerasekaran [for R-3] JUDGMENT S. PALANIVELU,J. The factual matrix of the Writ Appeal is as follows: 1. (i) The subject land is comprised in S.No.58/1 with an extent of 3350 Sq.ft. situate in Koyambedu Village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District, which belonged to the appellant by means of sale deed dated 5.7.1989. Prior to the purchase, the appellant sent a letter dated 3.5.1989 to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, requesting to inform whether there was any proposal to acquire the land for any public purpose. Responding the said letter, on 5.5.1989, the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority sent reply wherein it is stated that S.No.58 of Koyambedu Village was earmarked for commercial use and was not under any acquisition. After getting such clearance from the authority, appellant entered ventured to purchase the property. 1. (ii) But to the surprise of the appellant, the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in the year 1990 for the purpose of container terminal. The dates of notifications and subsequent proceedings in the acquisition procedure play vital role in this matter. On 30.5.1990 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued and the same was published in the daily Makkal Kural and Kumari Murasu on 1.6.1990. Local publication was effected with regard to the land acquisition on 4.6.1990. Thereafter the appellant and some other land owners preferred writ petitions before this Court, among which W.P.No.5223 of 1991 pertains to this appellant, in which the acquisition proceedings were challenged. 1. (iii) Learned Single Judge of this Court after perusal the records and hearing both sides, dismissed all the petitions on 19.6.2001. At the time of filing the writ petition, the appellant and others obtained stay of acquisition proceedings on 23.04.1991, which was in force for a period of eight weeks and the records show that it was not extended thereafter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. (iv) Before the Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the appellant and others that none of the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Country Planning Act 1971, the acquisition proceedings has been observed and the scheme provided for under the Act alone has to be followed. Turning down the said contention, the learned Judge has observed that the acquisition is by the State and it is neither by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority nor for purpose of Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the State Government has provided the funds, sanctioned the project and budgetary allocations were made by the State that the State Government had entrusted the work to the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for certain part of the work relating to Koyambedu Market Complex. Finally, it was concluded that the acquisition by the State Government was effected after invoking the provisions of the Central Act 1 of 1894. 2. Aggrieved at this, the appellant has carried the matter in appeal before this Court. Her main thrust is with regard to the lethargic attitude on the part of the Government in issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act beyond one year from the date of 4(1)Notification. 3. In the interregnum period between the date of Notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act' the stay obtained for eight weeks has to be excluded. It transpires from record that there was no extension of stay after eight weeks. After the said period was over there was no embargo for the State Government to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings by issuing declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act'. 4. For better understanding of the position of law in this regard, the relevant provisions of the land acquisition act have to be looked into, which have to be considered in the light of the events surfacing in this case. Hence following is the extraction of Section 4(i) and 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. "4. Publication of Preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon – (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality, of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the notification." "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose--(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under S.5-A, subsection (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under S.4, sub-S(1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under S.5-A, sub-S(2): Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification "under S.4 sub-S.(1): (i) XXX XXX XXX "(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the Notification: "Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. "Explanation 1. --In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under S.4 sub-S.(i), is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded." 5. (i) If the period of one year has to be reckoned from the date of 4(1) Notification after excluding the stay period of eight weeks, on 24.07.1991 one year would have been completed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. (ii) If one year period is calculated from the date of publication in News papers on 01.06.1990, after excluding the period of stay, on 25.07.1991 one year would have been completed. 5 (iii) In case, the date of local publication on 04.06.1990 is taken for consideration, the completion of one year period would be with 28.07.1991 after excluding the eight weeks period, during which the stay was in force. 5 (iv) The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 21.08.2001 fairly after a decade, under G.O.Ms.No.361, Housing and Urban Development (UD) 3(1) dt. 21.8.2001. 6. The statutory interval of one year has been prescribed in the Act is to enable the State Government to complete the procedure prescribed in Section 5 of the Act, within that period i.e., between 4(1) Notification and Declaration under Section 6. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant draws attention of this Court to decision rendered by this Court to support his contention that since proceedings under Section 6 of the Act were not made within one year from 4 (1) Notification, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1992 (1) L.W. 326 [The Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Jayaraman]. In the said judgment, this Court, while discussing about the subject, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has concluded that statutory violations in this regard could not be entertained and hence in such case, the proceedings had necessarily to be quashed. In that decision, the Division Bench has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 1622 [Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal] and (1987) 3 SCC 319 = A.I.R.1987 S.C.1390 [Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar]. The operative portion of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is as follows: "....We are, therefore, of the view that a plain reading of the words, namely, 'the last of the dates of such publication and of the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the Notification', introduced in S.4(1) by Central Act 68 of 1984, will only mean that the date on which public notice of the substance of the notification is given at convenient places in the locality is to be taken as the date of publication of the Notification under S.4(1) of the Act for the purpose of computing the period of one year contemplated under Clause (ii) of Proviso to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub-S.(1) of S.6 of the Act. Mohan,J., as he then was, in 1988 Writ L.R.22 (supra), has taken similar view, with which we concur." 8. A dispute was raised in the above said case as to whether the period of one year has to be reckoned from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or from the date of publication in the locality. This Court had held that the period of one year has to be calculated from the date of publication in the locality till date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. As far as the facts of the present case on hand are concerned, even if the date of publication in the locality is taken for consideration (28.7.91), the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was beyond the period of one year, on 21.8.2001. In this regard, it is to be necessarily observed that declaration under the Act is miserably beyond the period of one year and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 9. In yet another decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 1998 (1) L.A.C.C. 29 [The Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Natarajan] this Court has formulated general principles touching the object of the Act and held that in order to prevent any undue delay and evil consequences on the land owners and also to keep the effect of the notice intact, a reasonable time has to be read or presumed to a provision as has been done by this Court and that it is made clear that the Act prevents the undue delay which can take in its ambit. A gap between the date of publication and public notice of the substance and such notification at convenient places in the locality should not exceed the minimum time. As far as this case is concerned, there is no delay in the publication in newspapers and publication in the locality subsequent to 4(1) Notification, which have been effected within 60 days as required by the Act. In so far as the period of one year to be calculated between the date of publication in the locality as to 4(1) Notification and Declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act' is concerned, the time gap is more than one year which vitiates the acquisition proceedings. 10. It is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the provisions being mandatory and the law of acquisition being one of depriving the citizens of their right to property to which some of them are sentimentally attached, strict compliance of the provisions of law is required, atleast within the minimum possible time after notification and the officials concerned have to act sincerely and in a most diligent manner because any unavoidable delay would render the publicity contemplated under Sec. 4(1) of the Act effectless. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. We have gone through the records carefully. We are of the considered view that Declaration under Section 6 of the Act after one year from the date of 4(1) Notification, has vitiated the acquisition proceedings. In this regard, the order of the learned single Judge has necessarily to be interfered with and the same is reversed. The land acquisition proceedings are quashed on account of the subsequent developments after the disposal of the Writ Petition No.5223 of 1991 as graphically narrated in this Judgment, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal. 12. In fine the appeal is allowed. No costs. Ggs Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Unit III Egmore, Chennai 600008. 3. The Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600008. • 1 cc to M/s. Satish Parasaran, Advocate SR No. 48428 • 1 cc to Mr. D. Veerasekaran, Advocate SR No. 48315 • 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.48147 TS(CO) SR/11.9.2008 Judgment in: W.A.No.1991 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/