Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3274

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Loganathan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Secretary to Government & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.365 of 2005 & WAMP No.650 of 2005
Decided On : 30 November 2006

Appearing Advocates: For the Appellant:T.R. Rajagopalan, SC., for K. Surendranath, Advocate. For the Respondents:A. Edwin Prabhakaran, Government Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the landowner to be given an opportunity to put forth objections and for the District Collector to consider the objections before making a decision in land acquisition proceedings.

Headnote:
Acquisition - Land Acquisition - Act 31 of 1978 - Sections 4(2), 4(3) - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 31/78 - Summary: The court discussed the acquisition proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1978 and the provisions of Section 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act. The court highlighted the necessity for the landowner to be given an opportunity to put forth objections and the requirement for the District Collector to consider the objections before making a decision. The court referred to a Full Bench decision outlining the procedure to be followed under Section 4(1) of the Act and emphasized the importance of providing the landowner with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorized officer and allowing time for further representation before the District Collector. The court concluded that the impugned proceeding could not be sustained due to the failure to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and set aside the order, allowing the Collector to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1978, alleging that the third respondent proceeded to acquire his land without serving a show cause notice as required under Section 4(2) of the Act. The petitioner raised objections, but they were not considered, and the acquisition was notified. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the acquisition proceedings on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court referred to a Full Bench decision outlining the procedure to be followed under Section 4(1) of the Act and emphasized the necessity for the landowner to be given an opportunity to put forth objections and for the District Collector to consider the objections before making a decision. The court concluded that the impugned proceeding could not be sustained and set aside the order, allowing the Collector to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in the acquisition proceedings and the compliance with the provisions of Section 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the landowner to be given an opportunity to put forth objections and for the District Collector to consider the objections before making a decision. The court referred to a Full Bench decision outlining the procedure to be followed under Section 4(1) of the Act and highlighted the importance of providing the landowner with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorized officer and allowing time for further representation before the District Collector.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and allowed the writ appeal, permitting the Collector to proceed afresh, if desired, in accordance with the law.

Judgment :-

(Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.02.2005 made in W.P.No.3879 of 1997.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 04.02.2005 made in W.P.No.3879 of 1997, in and by which, the learned single Judge upheld the acquisition proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1978 and dismissed the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the third respondent without serving a show cause notice as required under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 31/78(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, proceeded to acquire his land for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of Nandimangalam village. When he was not given an opportunity, he approached this Court by way of writ petition, which ended in direction to the authorities to consider his objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, particularly, the provisions of Section4 (3) of the Act. Thereafter, the third respondent issued Form-I notice dated 19.01.1996 informing the petitioner that an extent of 0.64.0 hectares belonging to him are required to provide house sites for Adi Dravidars thereby calling upon him to send his objections and to attend an enquiry on 12.02.1996. According to him, he raised his objections on 31.01.1996 and also attended the enquiry conducted by the third respondent. The third respondent without considering his objections recommended for the acquisition. The second respondent without considering his objections, accepted the recommendations of the third respondent and notified the acquisition. The said notification was published in Chengalpat MGR District Gazette dated 25.07.1996. He also received notice in Form-III calling upon him to attend the Award Enquiry to be held on 24.03.1997. In those circumstances, he filed the writ petition for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings on various grounds.

4. The third respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (ADW), Tiruvallur, Chengai-MGR District, has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is stated that due notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 4 (2) of the Act. But the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry, which was held on 12.02.1996. However, an objection was sent for the proposed acquisition. After examining the objection, the third respondent recommended for overruling. After observing usual formalities, 4(1) proposals were submitted to the Collector of Chengapat MGR District for his approval. The proposals under Section 4(1) have been approved by the Collector in his proceedings dated 09.07.1996 and 4(1) notification was published in Chengalpat MGR District Gazette Extraordinary issue No.30 dated 25.07.1996. It is further stated that the objections raised by the writ petitioner were carefully examined and recommended for rejection and there is no need to pass an order considering his objection.

5. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit stating that there is no need for the present acquisition. He also highlighted various factual aspects regarding earlier acquisition and the availability of the alternate land for allotment of those beneficiaries.

6. The third respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit with regard to the certain factual details mentioned in the reply affidavit by the petitioner. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, after considering the elaborate pleadings of both parties and by referring certain decisions and after finding that respondents 2 and 3 have fully complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules, has dismissed the writ petition, hence,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document