Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 1987 W.L.R. 182; (2) Kannammal (deceased) V.N, Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu and two others, 1990 W.L.R. 439; (3) C. Ponnusamy and 62 others v. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort George, Madras-9 and Anr., ; (4) Balkis Ammal by Power of Attorney Agent K.PM. Abdul Gafor v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., and (5) Tube Suppliers Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr., .

5. In the first of the decisions, Nainar Sundaram, J. as he then was, held that if remarks of the requisitioning body had not been obtained when the enquiry under Section 5-A was held, much less furnished to the owner of the land, it would vitiate the proceedings. In the second decision Kannammal (deceased) V.N. Devadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1990 W.L.R. 439 Kanakaraj, J. held that remarks of the requisitioning authority should be available to the owner/claimant whose land is acquired at the time of the enquiry under Section 5-A. As the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in that case had been communicated to the petitioners therein nearly two years after the enquiry under Section 5-A, it was held that it vitiated the entire enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The learned Judge held that in many cases, the Land Acquisition Officers held a second enquiry after the remarks were obtained by issuing notices to the land owners as well as to the requisitioning body and in the opinion of the learned Judge, such a procedure will alone conform to the requirements of Rule 3(b)/(c) of the Rules. The learned Judge held that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was vitiated.