Non-consideration of objection filed by petitioner by the Collector independently.

The present Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the notification issued by the second respondent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme, Act (Act 31/1978) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). The issue relates to the property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No. 45/2B to an extent of 0.13.0.hectares, Survey No.49 to an extent of 0.81.0 hectares and Survey No.50/1A to an extent of 0.23.0 hectares in village Nandimangalam. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Act dated 20.12.2000 was issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of the petitioner No.1. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the petitioner No.1. In the said notice it was indicated that the lands were required for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-dravidars in the village. As per the notice, the petitioner No.1 was required to attend the enquiry on 8.1.2001. The petitioner No.1 filed a detailed written objection dated 2.1.2001 wherein it was indicated among other things that Government poromboke lands were available for the use of the Adi-dravidars. It was also indicated out of the lands already acquired for Adi-dravidars, several plots were lying vacant. It was also indicated that there had been oral partition among the members of the family and all the separate lands owners had not been issued notice and more over the lands under occupation of the family members being inimical should not be acquired. The petitioner No.2 also issued a legal notice indicating that the lands in S.No.45/2B and S.No.50/1A had been allotted to him. It was also indicated that the notice dated 20.12.2000 was served on the petitioner No.1 only on 30.12.2000 and yet the enquiry had been fixed to be held on 8.1.2001 without giving 15 days notice. Subsequently, the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Gazette. But, such notification was not communicated to the petitioners and only after issuing notice for the award enquiry the petitioners came to know about the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition has been filed. In the Writ Petition it is contended that the notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(2) of the Act was improper inasmuch as the notice dated 20.12.2000 was served only on 31.12.2000 and yet, the enquiry had been fixed to be held on 8.1.2001 without giving sufficient time to the petitioners to file effective objections in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. It is also contended that even though all the three petitioners had jointly interested in the disputed land, notice was served on petitioner No.1 alone and no notice had been served on the petitioners 2 and 3. It is further contended that since vast extent of vacant land had been acquired and house sites had been provided to Adi-dravidars there was no necessity for fresh acquisition, the land was being sought to be acquired. It is further contended that the second respondent who is the authority contemplated under the statute to take a decisions regarding acquisition of land has not applied his mind and has not considered the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner No.1 and has mechanically signed the proposal forwarded by the subordinate officers for acquistion of the land and for issuing notification under Section 4(1).

2. Even though a formal counter has not been filed on behalf of the respondents, at the time of hearing, the respondents have produced the entire records. The High Court office prepared the translated copy of the relevant records. The main contention of the petitioners is to the effect that even though an enquiry was held by respondent No.3 as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act, thereater, the matter has been mechanically dealt with by the respondent No.2 while directing issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act without proper application of mind to the relevant materials on record including the objections filed on behalf of