P.Sathasivam, J.: Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.12.1998, made in Writ Petition No.13216 of 1992, State of Tamil Nadu through its Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore preferred the above writ appeal.

2. The respondents herein are the petitioners before the learned Judge, who filed the said writ petition questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, after finding that there is no specific delegation or authorization by the Government authorizing the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) to discharge the duties of the Collector, quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of land bearing Survey No.37/2 of an extent of 4.32 acres at 1.74.5 Hectares of land situated in Mangadu village in Arcot Taluk in North Arcot District. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 15.3.1988 and in dailies on 17.3.1988. The substance of the same was not published in the locality. Though the petitioners submitted their objection in the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act on 9.3.1992, the same was not duly considered. Sec.6(1) declaration was published in the gazette on 20.8.1992, and in dailies on 21.8.1992. The said declaration is per se illegal and beyond the period prescribed.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that on an application made by the houseless Adi-Dravidars of Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk to relieve congestion and taking into account of the dire need and necessity of providing house sites to them and no Government land available, they initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land of the petitioners. After fulfilling all the formalities such as effecting proper notification in the gazette, publication in two dailies and in the locality, notice was served on the petitioners for 5-A enquiry. They participated in the enquiry and submitted their objection. After considering and over-ruling their objection, the Government issued declaration under Sec.6 and ultimately passed an award. There is no flaw in the procedure that was followed and inasmuch as the petitioners were given opportunity in all stages, there is no ground for interference.

5. The learned Judge in his lengthy order has found that though in the notification published in the gazette, there was an authorization, authorizing the second respondent-Special Tahsildar for the purpose of Sec.4(2) as well as Sec.3(c) of the Act, in the notification published in the newspaper, there was no specific delegation or authorization authorizing the second respondent to discharge the duties of the Collector; hence he quashed the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). Questioning the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

6. First, let us consider whether the reason given by the learned Judge for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings is sustainable? The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/appellants herein would submit that inasmuch as the Notification issued under Sec.4(1) and published in the gazette contains specific authorization by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, authorizing the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition-Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore to exercise the powers conferred under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 and Clause (c) of Sec.3 of the Act, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare) is fully empowered to perform the functions of the Collector under Sec.4(1) of the Act. He further contended th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document