Skip to content


N. Krishnappa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, Housing Department and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1977)1MLJ406
AppellantN. Krishnappa Mudaliar and anr.
RespondentThe Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, Housing Department and anr.
Excerpt:
- - if any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-a, the collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land. 3. more than above this, the writ petition is to quash the notification under section 4 (1). it is well settled law that section 4 (1) notification is purely preliminary in nature and is administrative in character, and no writ will lie to quash such a notification......and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land..on the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the collector, the collector shall heaf the objector...and record any evidence, that may be produced in support of his objections.... on completion of his enquiry, the collector shall submit the case for the decision of the government....therefore, there is no basis for contending that thirty days' time must elapse. even otherwise, as noted above, the enquiry scheduled for 10th april, 1975 was adjourned to 30th may, 1975, on which date alone it took place.3. more than above this, the writ petition is to quash the notification under section 4 (1). it is well settled law that section 4 (1).....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Mohan, J.

1. The acquisition in the instant case is for formation of a Harijan Colony. Section 4 (1) notification was made on 22nd January, 1975. Notice relating to enquiry under Section 5-A was served on the petitioner on 14th March, 1975, informing that the enquiry would take place-on 10th April, 1975. The petitioner preferred his objections. However, the enquiry was adjourned to 30th May, 1975. At that stage the present writ petition has been preferred to quash the notification under Section 4(1) dated 22nd January, 1975.

2. The only contention that is urged by Mr. P. Narasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a violation of the Board's Standing Order 90, paragraph (9), in that thirty days' time had not elapsed from the date of service of the notice of Section 5-A enquiry. This contention is not tenable for two reasons. All that the Board's Standing Order 90, paragraph (9) states, is:

Immediately after the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1), the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within 30 days after the issue of the notification, a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. This notice should be published at convenient places, in the said locality, and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar, and in the nearest police station...

If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land..

On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall heaf the objector...and record any evidence, that may be produced in support of his objections.... On completion of his enquiry, the Collector shall submit the case for the decision of the Government....

Therefore, there is no basis for contending that thirty days' time must elapse. Even otherwise, as noted above, the enquiry scheduled for 10th April, 1975 was adjourned to 30th May, 1975, on which date alone it took place.

3. More than above this, the writ petition is to quash the notification under Section 4 (1). It is well settled law that Section 4 (1) notification is purely preliminary in nature and is administrative in character, and no writ will lie to quash such a notification.

4. For all the above reasons, this writ petition will stand dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //