The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, which incorporates a legal fiction deeming a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as a show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act.

Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 17.12.1999 passed in W.P.No.4420 of 1996.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. The petitioner/appellant has challenged the notification dated 09.01.1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the T.N. Act 31 of 1978) published in the District Gazette on 31.01.1996 pertaining to the land in Survey Nos.280/3, 280/6 and 282/1 to an extent of 0.92.5 Hectares in Silukkuvarpatti Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul Anna District for providing house sites to the Adi-Dravidars of old Silukkuvarpatti Village.

4. It appears that initially the land was sought to be acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is a Central Act. After completing the enquiry under Section 5A of the Central Act, but before passing an award under Section 11 of the Central Act, the respondents switched over to the provisions of T.N. Act 31 of 1978. It appears that the District Collector authorised the Special Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent herein, under Section 4(2) of the T.N. Act 31 of 1978 to conduct an enquiry, and the Special Tahsildar had also conducted the enquiry in which he afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who submitted his objections to the acquisition of land on 03.11.1995. It is alleged that thereafter the declaration under Section 4(1) of the T.N. Act for acquisition of the said land was issued on 09.01.1996 and published in the District Gazette Extraordinary Issue of No.1 of the Dindigul Anna District on 31.1.1996.

5. It is alleged by the appellant that before issuing the declaration under Section 4(1) of the T.N. Act the District Collector should have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and should have supplied a copy of the Special Tahsildar’s Report on the basis of which he issued the declaration under Section 4(1) of the T.N. Act.

6. However, the learned single Judge has in our opinion rightly held that in view of Section 22 of the T.N. Act there is no need to conduct a further enquiry under Section 4(2) of the T.N. Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Tmt.Pushpa Bai Bainsingh Vs. District Collector Tirunelveli Kattabomman District & Others, 1998 (1) CTC 281, wherein the acquisition was set aside on the ground that the District Collector did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein after receiving the report of the Tahsildar. In our opinion, the said decision is distinguishable because in that case no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) had been taken, but in the present case it is not disputed that initially the proceedings were commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act). Hence, in view of Section 22 of the T.N. Act 31 of 1978 no further opportunity of hearing by the District Collector is required. Section 22 of the T.N. Act 31 of 1978 states

“Sec-22(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply also to any case or cases in which proceedings have been started before the commencement of this Act for the acquisition of any land for the Harijan Welfare Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act) but no award has been made by the Collector under Section 11 of the said Act before such commencement, as if –

(i)The notification published under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, or

(ii)The declaration made under Section 6 of the said Act, or

(iii)The notice given under sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, were a notice to show-cause against the acquisition of the land served under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-Section (1) shall apply in relation to any land unless and until afte