Recording of satisfaction comes into play only after considering and disposing objections.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certioraified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Notification of the Collector of Thanjavur District, the first respondent herein published at Page 2 of the District Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 22.12.95 issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) for the acquisition of lands for the provision of house-sites for Adi-Dravidars of Kalyanapuram village mentioned in the schedule to the notice of the 2nd respondent in Rca.No.Na.Ka.551/95-A dated 27.09.95 issued in Form II, Rule 5(1) of the Rules under the said Act in so far as the lands of the petitioners comprised in S.No.201/1.A, 201/2.A-1, 201/5.A.2, totally measuring 0.47.5 hectares, situate at Kalyanapuram village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District and quash the same and forbear the respondents from acquiring the said lands of extent Hectares 0.47.5 belonging to the petitioner as set forth above.)

This petition has been filed challenging the Gazette notification dated 22.11.1995 issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'Act 31 of 1978') for providing house-sites to Adi-Dravidars of Kalyanapuram Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The land of the first petitioner (since deceased, represented by legal representatives, namely petitioners 2 to 11 and the fourth petitioner, since deceased, represented by legal representatives, namely petitioners 12 to 14) was sought to be acquired by the first respondent. Therefore, the notice under Section 4(2) in Form-I under Rule 3(i) of the Rules, 1999, framed under the Act 31 of 1978, was issued on 27.09.1995 by the Special Tahsildar calling upon the first petitioner to show cause as to why the property in question should not be acquired and to give their objections, if any, for the proposed acquisition. The objections were filed by the first petitioner on 17.10.1995 and an enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar and the report was submitted to the District Collector on 16.11.1995. The District Collector rejected the objections by proceedings No.Na.Ka.41033/95 on 28.12.1995 and the same was served on the first petitioner on 09.01.1996. The notification under Section 4(1) was however issued on 22.12.1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two issues in his challenge to the notification. The first contention is that the District Collector has not followed the procedures prescribed under the Act while passing the impugned notification under Section 4(1) and the second contention is that the Collector has passed the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Act without recording his satisfaction as contemplated and has proceeded to acquire the land based on the recommendation or compulsion of the Government. The contentions are inter-connected with each other and they are considered together.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even before consideration and disposal of the objection on 28.12.1995, the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 22.12.1995. Therefore, the Collector, at the time of issuing the notification under Section 4(1), did not consider the objections filed by the first petitioner. Thus, there was total non-application of the mind on the part of the Collector while passing the notification under Section 4(1) to the various grounds raised by the first petitioner in the objections submitted pursuant to the notice issued under Section 4(2), namely the enquiry as contemplated under Section 4(3)(a)(b). In view of the above, there is clear violation of the mandatory provision and the notification has been issued in a cursory manner without taking into consideration the objections of the first petitioner. Therefore, the satisfa