Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. However, the Government after calling for a report from the Special Commissioner overruled the objections and decided to proceed with the acquisition and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 11.11.1989 and it was published in the gazette on the same date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before me. 3. Notice of motion has been ordered by S. Ramalingam, J., on 8.8.1990. Mr. Meenakshisundaram, learned Government Advocate appears for the State. Several contentions have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions. Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contends that the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in this case and as such, the acquisition is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Collector v. Raja Ram Jaiswal , for the proposition that there cannot be a publication in the newspapers prior to the issuance of the publication of the notification in the official gazette. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that on this ground alone, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Per contra learned Counsel appearing for the State referred to Section 4(1) of the Act which has been amended by Act 68 of 1984 and contends that Sub-section (1) to Section 4 of the Act stated that a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality apart from the public notice of the substance of such notification and nowhere it is stated in the section that the Gazette notification should precede paper publication. According to the learned Counsel for the State, the petitioners have taken part in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and their objections have been duly considered and as such every opportunity had been given to the petitioners and therefore, the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated.