the second respondent (The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Neighbourhood Schemes, Saidapet). He cannot assume for a moment that from the time he submitted a draft Section 4(1) notification up to the date it came to be approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.1096 Housing and Urban Development on 17th July 1978, the ownership will remain static. Perhaps, because by the indifference to look into the revenue records has resulted in this position. This imperious attitude is to be deprecated. After all, what is wrong if a person objects to the acquisition let him to do so; let him be heard and then acquire if need be. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that because Patta came to be issued after the submission of the draft of Section 4(1) notification to the Government; hence there was no need to include the name of the petitioner in Section 4(1) notification notwithstanding the fact that patta had come to be issued long before the issue of Section 4(1) notification, viz., on 11.6.1977 itself. If the argument of the learned Government Pleader is to be accepted, it would only mean deprivation of a man's property without he having any say in the matter. It is precisely under these circumstances I have held in Bhama Ramamorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1977 Mad 272, that such a procedure is opposed to the principle of natural justice and equally constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.D.Raju is right in his reliance on this ruling. 7. Turning to the second argument, of course, the Courts are not to set aside the progressive measures of the Government like the proceedings of the land acquisition in this case which undoubtedly is for public purpose in a sense of bravado. The Courts have always remembered that the right of a private individual must be subservient to public interest because it is that which constitutes the guiding star for land acquisition matters. It is true that by accepting the conception of the learned counsel for the petitioner the entire neighbourhood scheme which covers an extent of 96.92 acres may come to standstill or may even get baulked. But who is to be blamed for this ? It is easy to point out the accusing finger to the Court. But where situations as presented in this case, been brought about by the indifference of the officers concerned, the Court cannot but come to the rescue of the petitioner. This is eminently one such case where the Court must hold the acquisition to be illegal, because it is in violation of the principles
