STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. versus MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4( 1) and SA-Errata to notifica-
tion-Eff ect of-Whether errata amounts to fresh notification-If seperate en-
~ 
quiry is required persuant to the errata. 
c 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 9-llregularity in se1vice-Effect 
of 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 11-Notification punished in 
1978-Possession taken over in 1981-Award made in 199(}-Whether delay 
renders award invalid. 
D 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section lfr-Possession-Taken by way of 
panchanama without taking over physical possession-If valid-Taking over 
physical possession-If necessary. 
Constitution of India-Article 14-Lands acquired for housing E 
scheme-Some lands not acquired on grounds of pending litigation or be-
cause they were inferior-Held, such exclusion is not discriminatory-Land 
Acquisition Act-Generally. 
The land of the respondents was acquired under the Land Acquisi-
F 
tion Act, 1894. The Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 was published on 26.7.1978, the award made on 22.9.1986 and the 
possession taken over on 24.11.1986. 
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition of the respondent challenging the acquisition. The Division Bench G 
quashed. the notification under section 4(1) as well as the declaration 
•
under section 6 of the Act on the ground that the scheme was vague. 
The appellants filed appeal by way of Special Leave Petition before 
this Court. During the pendency of the petition, this Court in State of Tamil 
Nadu & Ors. Etc. v. L. Krishnan & Ors. Etc., (1996) 1 SCC 250 decided the H 
451 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
question of vagueness against the respondent. 
Before this Court, the respondent raised the following arguments : 
1. Certain lands forming part of the same scheme were excluded 
from the notification whereas the land of the respondents were sought to 
B 
be acquired and therefore, the acquisition is discriminatory and violative 
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
c 
2. Certain lands not covered by the initial notification under section 
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were sought to be included by 
publishing an errata. Therefore, the notification in respect of such lands 
must be deemed to have been published after the errata. However, no 
seperate enquiry was. held in respect of these lands and therefore, the 
award is bad . 
. 3. Notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
D were served on 120 persons, including a dead person, in a single day. 
E 
Therefore, the service was not valid. 
4. The panchanama of Land Acquisition taking over possession of 
the land even though the respondent remained in physical possession of 
the land is illegal. 
5. In case of sun-ey number 2/11, which was included in the notifica· 
tion by way of errata, the award was made on 31.8.1990 and therefore, 
from 1978 till 1990, the respondents were denied enjoyment of the lands. 
The award ought to be set aside on the ground of delay. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Government laid down guidelines for exclusion of 
lands which are the subject matter of lay out approved by the Housing 
Board. The Government having realised the fault in issuing the above 
G guidelines, thereafter issued another order withdrawing all the guideline 
issued in the GOs referred to above with immediate effect. Thus, it could 
be seen that the Government itself having realised the misapplication of 
the guidelines laid by it and its disastrous effect on the execution of the 
Housing Scheme prepared by the Housing Board or entrusted to it by 
Government or local authorities, withdrew the GOs with immediate effect. 
H If the lands are excluded from the scheme, the entire scheme gets 
,. 
STATE v. MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL 
453 
frustrated. [4S6-E-G] 
2. It is true that the Government having realised that the lands were 
initially notified to be acquired but did not cover the survey Nos. being 
situated in the adjacent villages, the errata notification was published and 
included lands in Survey Nos. 2/S, 2/11 and 2/12. Once errata was publish-
ed, it dates back to the date of initial Section 4(1) notification, namely, 
June 26, 1978. It cannot be considered to be a fresh notification issued 
under section 4(1). It is not in dispute that the responde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.