ORDER: The writ petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings on several grounds. According to him, the lands in question were purchased by him and his sister, Aminal Bibi in 1963 and he has been in exclusive possession ever since. According to him, there are enough Government lands in and around Kadayanallur, which could be allotted to the Adi Dravidas. No enquiry was conducted and no attempt was made to serve notice on the owner nor were the rules relevant to service of notice complied with.

2. In this case, the proceedings of the Tahsildar indicate that notice was served only to one Mohd.Yusuf, S/o.Shahul Hameed and therefore, the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act also refers only to Mohd.Yusuff, S/o.Shahul Hameed as the owner of the land sought to be acquired. The recommendations of the Special Tahsildar on 16.9.1995 also indicate that the Village Administrative Officer had informed that the patta was in Mohd.Yusuff’s name and that he alone is in enjoyment of the lands. For the first time, in the Form III notice issued under Rule 5(i), the petitioner’s name is found. It is apparent even from the counter that the petitioner has not been shown as the person interested at the earlier stage when he has the right to be heard before the Collector is satisfied that the lands, in respect of which the notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act was issued, must be acquired.

3. 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 and property expropriated, the exercise 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.

4. 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 form used in the Central Act for issuance of notice under Sec.4 and these words can really be ignored and are 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 ignore, then the latter parts would indicate that the notice is issued under Sec.4(1) which means that the Collector has been satisfied with the recommendations of the Special Tahsildar as per Sec.4(3)(ii). Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that the fact that the requirement of the Government regarding the acquisition of land is mentioned in the Collector’s notice under equate it to a notice issued by the Government indicating its satisfaction.

5. Sec.4(1) clearly speaks of satisfaction. Without that, further proceedings cannot go on. In fact, in The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R.Manickammal, (2002)2 C.T.C. 1, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the action of the Government in proceeding with the acquisition though the Collector had indicated that further action should be dropped. So, the Collector’s satisfaction is the indispensable factor to justify the acquisition. The record of sati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document