Madras High Court
Mrs. Chinthamani And Others vs The Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 19 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)CTC21
ORDER
1. In this writ petition the petitioners have chosen to question the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and also under Section 6 on the ground that the person interested has not been issued any notice. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 11.2.1991, it has been gazetted on 13.3.1991, paper publication was made on 15.3.1991, it was published in the locality on 18.3.1991. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 19.6.1991 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 23.6.1991. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition after the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners' sister by name Mrs.Chinthamani, who has got a share in the property. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has been informed of the above fact, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay of dispossession was ordered. However the award was passed on 25.11.1992.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the name of the petitioners' sister namely, Mrs.Chinthamani is not found in the revenue records during the course of the 5-A enquiry it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that she is one of the shareholders and she has got a share in the property. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has proceeded with the 5-A enquiry on the ground that she has neither appeared nor given any representation with respect to her rights. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground that no notice has been issued to Mrs. Chinthamani. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in P.C.Thanikavelu v. The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras-1 and another, 1989 T.L.N.J. 107 wherein it is held as follows:
"Though it is incumbent upon the Revenue to keep their records up to date by effecting mutation of names reflecting the actual state of affairs by showing the persons really interested in the land in their records, yet in a few cases it may so happen that the revenue records are not made up to date and the person who is really interested in the land may not receive any notice from the Collector for the enquiry under S. 5A of the Act. In such cases, 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 name of the 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 learned counsel relying upon the observation made by the Full Bench has argued that there is a duty cast upon the Collector to issue a notice to the sister of the petitioners when it was brought to the notice of the Officer that she is the person interested and he has further argued that non-issuance of notice is 'in violation of the principles of natural justice. Sufficient time has been granted to the Government-Advocate to produce the records to verify whether notice has been issued to Mrs.Chinthamani. But no records have been produced on behalf of the respondents. Learned Government Advocate has argued that as the name of Mrs.Chinthamani was not found in the revenue records, it is not necessary on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue a notice. In another reported judgment in Tamilarasan, P. v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner & Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, , a learned single Judge of this Court, following the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court held that notice is necessary, if it is brought to the notice of the enquiring officer that the concerned person is interested and non-issuance of notice to the person interested is in violation of the principles of natural justice, when it is brought to the notice of the concerned Land Acquisition Officer during the proceedings under Section 5-A. In this case it is apparent that no notice has been issued to Mrs.Chinthamani, even though it has been brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer in the course of 5-A enquiry that she is the person interested in the property.
3. Under the above circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in not issuing the, notice to Mrs.Chinthamani, even though it was brought to his notice that she is the person interested. Following the Full Bench decision of this court cited supra, the land acquisition proceedings are to be vitiated. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh after issuing notice to Mrs.Chinthamani as per law. Consequently, W.M.P. No.26586 of 1992 is dismissed.