ORDER: In October 1995, by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Office, Salem, the proposal of the Tahsildar, Attur was approved for acquisition of house sites to the Adi Dravidas in Yethappur village and the Special Tahsildar, Attur was directed to proceed further. The proposal sent by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Attur as against the heading ‘Reason why the land at the disposal of the Government cannot be utilised’, it was stated that no suitable poromboke lands were available for that purpose. On 17.10.1995, notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act was given to one Renulingam and both sons of Prabhulingam to lodge their objections on or before 11 a.m. on 8.11.1995. It is seen from the records that the Village Administrative Officer has made an endorsement that Ramalingam has refused to receive the notice because the properly now belongs to the two petitioners in W.P.Nos.12558 and 12669 of 1996. Thereupon, the notice was affixed on the stone. On 7.12.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar forwarded his recommendation, according to which the Officer indicates that he was personally satisfied ‘that the notice was served and published in the manner prescribed’. Again, there is the endorsement of the Village Administrative Officer that Renulingam has refused to receive the notice.

2. The draft notice under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 in Form II, as per Rule 3(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 is signed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildar and was issued on 8.12.1995.

3. Thereafter, on 15.12.1995, the District Collector by ROC.123795/95, recorded his acceptance of the report of the Special Tahsildar for acquisition of the land on the ground that there were no objections to the said acquisition. This is a cyclostyled form which has been filled up. On 29.1.1996, the Special Tahsildar, while submitting the cost statement, records that there are no trees or structures in the land sought to be acquired and that there are no wells. On 19.8.1996, the petitioner in W.P.No.12669 of 1996 has addressed the Director of Adi Dravida Welfare Department that there are trees as well as a motor connection in her lands. This is accompanied by a photograph.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice under Rule 3(ii) is not in conformity with Sec.4(1). What Sec.4(1) demands or requires is the satisfaction of the Collector. Whereas, there is nothing in the notice issued under Sec.4(1) which indicates the satisfaction of the Collector and therefore, if it is apparent from the notice that there is no satisfaction of the Collector, then the proceedings need to be quashed. When the sovereign power of eminent domain is exercised the excise of power shall be only by authority of law and not otherwise. It was submitted that even the form is not in accordance with Sec.4(1). The blind adherence to the form would show the non-application of mind and absence of ‘satisfaction’ of the Collector.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents only to make his submissions with regard to the validity of Sec.4(1) notice issued in Form III. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2114. He submitted that Sec.4(2), together with Rule 3(i), would correspond to Sec.4 of the Central Act and Sec.4(1) and Rule 3(ii), which corresponds to Sec.6 of the Central Act. Therefore, the words used in the form, “Whereas it appears that.....” have perhaps been taken from the from used in the Central Act for issuance of notice under Sec.4 and these words can really be ignored and redundant. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, this notice can be split up into three parts and if the first part which deals with the requirement of acquisition of land is ignored, then the latter parts would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document