Madras High Court
K. Pachiappan, K. Manickam, K. ... vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The ... on 17 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 A I H C 1370, (2003) WRITLR 237 (2003) 1 LACC 571, (2003) 1 LACC 571
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari for calling the records relating to GO (3D)No.47 Backward classed & Most Backward Classes Welfare Department dated 2.3.1993 and GO (3D) No.162 Backward classes & Most Backward Classes Welfare Dept. dated 23.12.1993 from the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
2. The entire proceedings relate to acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for providing house sites to Navidaras (Barbers)and the petitioners who have been affected by the said proceedings, have raised the following grounds for consideration.
(1) The Publication as required under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in two Tamil Dailies namely "Athirshtam" and "Madurai Mani" on 8.4.1993.
(2) The said two Newspapers have no circulation in the said area and hence the statutory requirements are not satisfied.
(3) The beneficiaries were living in rented houses as well as own houses and hence they are well off. Most of them, do not require any house to be provided by the Government. Therefore, the order passed by the Government is as arbitrators vitiated by non-application of mind and there was also no subjective satisfaction by the Government. (4) A perusal of the file shows that the Local MLA by his letter dated 14.6.1993 had directed the Special Tahsildar to overrule all or any of the objections and to proceed with the acquisition proceedings and therefore, the impugned proceedings have been initiated on extraneous grounds.
3. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader and in reply to the aforesaid points, he contends as follows:
As regards the publication in the two Tamil Dailies, the petitioners having taken part in 5-A enquiry have no prejudice in any manner and therefore, the said point is not available for the present case. Reliance is also placed an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1942/1999 dated 8.12.1999(M Muthusamy Naicker vs. State of Tamilnadu and others) in support of his submission that "Viduthalai" a newspaper though politically originated was recognised by the Government and authorised by the Government for issue of advertisement and therefore, publication in "Viduthalai" was in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. As regards the public purpose, the Government was satisfied on enquiry that the materials given by the petitioner in the said context have not been raised before the appropriate authority.
5. As regards the letter given by the local MLA, the report of the Tasildar shows that the said letter did not weigh his mind and therefore, the mere fact that the said letter was given by the MLA cannot result in vitiating the entire proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions of both sides.
7.On the issue of publication of the Notification in "Athirshtam" and "Madurai Mani" it may be mentioned at the out set that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid will not apply as the said decision relates to the publication in Tamil Daily 'Viduthalai" which is a different newspaper. In the context of the two newspapers in which publication has been effected in this case and the materials now produced by the petitioners would show that both those newspapers have no circulation at all in the area. The letter of the Circulation Manager of Madurai Mani dated 9.8.2001 has been produced to show that they do not have any circulation in Dharmapuri area. Another letter dated 11.8.2001 has been produced from Sowdeswari News Agency stating that they have no distributor in Papparapatti Village and that there are no salesmen in the area for the above said newspapers. Therefore there are positive materials to show that the said two newspapers have no circulation at all in the area. These materials are not controverted by the respondents. The contention that the petitioners will not be prejudiced in any manner in view of their having taken part in the 5-A Enquiry, cannot also be sustained . The requirement of publication in the local newspaper having good circulation is a basic statutory requirement which is statutorily enjoined as one of the primary requirements of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This is not a case of failure to give individual notice to the land owner or his name not appearing in the notification,yet had taken part in Section 5A enquiry. The need to publish the notificationin leading news papers having a large circulation in the area is a basic and general requirement intended as information to the public and the same not having been satisfied, the Notification is liable to be quashed. If this requirement is to be ignored, then the need to publish the Notification in the Gazette as well as in the locality can also be ignored. This requirement should not be confused with the requirement under S. 5A dealing with notice to interested persons and absence of prejudice to the individual may become relevant.
8. The manner in which the impugned proceedings have been conducted is also not correct. The authorities have entertained a letter from the local MLA dated 14.6.1993,-- (Mr. Purushothaman, MLA Pennagaram Constituency, Dharamapuri District) - This letter is seen from the file produced by the respondent at page No.231. In the said letter, the said MLA has stated that the authorities should over-rule all or any of the objections that may be raised by the land owners. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that there is no reference to the said letter of the MLA in the report of the Tashildar cannot be accepted. The very fact that the letter has been retained in the file would show that it should have weighed in his mind before dealing with the case. Apparently, it is kept only to justify his conclusion and order.
9. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the beneficiaries were living in the rented houses and I am inclined to hold that it cannot be a ground for rejecting the request of allotment of house sites to them, if they are otherwise homeless persons. But I find that in the list of particulars furnished by the petitioners- at least some of the beneficiaries do not deserve allotment of house sites at the instance of the Government. For instance Rajeswari w/o Thangavel is said to own a rice mill; Rukku w/o Munusamy is said to be a rice merchant and another patta has been issued in the name of her husband Munusamy; Pachiammal w/o Raju has a house in the name of her husband; Rajamanickam a tailor has a house in his name and Amudha w/o Anbarasu has a terraced house. Likewise, Pachaimuthu s/o. Periyannan and Madhesh s/o Appu have houses of their own. Ravi s/o Pandian runs a Soda factory and owns a house in the name of his father. Saroja w/o Raju owns a rice mill. Arumugham s/o Sanjeevan owns patta land and house. Though the above particulars have been furnished by the petitioners as early as on 31.8.2001, no counter has been filed denying the said allegations. The said facts which are not denied should result in holding that the public purpose stated to justify acquisition, does not exist and the action for acquisition is a colourable and arbitrary exercise of power.
10. For all the above said reasons, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are quashed. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.