ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a writ of certiorari, to quash the acquisition proceedings of the first respondent in his Notification dated 9.2.1996 published in the North Arcot Ambedkar District Gazette for acquiring the lands bearing S.No.133 for an extent of 1.16 acres situated in Renugapuram Hamlet of 29 Rangasamudram Village and for the lands bearing S.No.134 for an extent of 1.00 acres situated in Jangalapalli Hamlet of No.29. Rangasamudram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot District issued under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978.

2. According to the petitioners, the lands in question belonged to the father of the first petitioner. The first petitioner and his sister alone are entitled to get the lands on partition made among them. Apart from these lands no other land was in their occupation. They are all small farmers solely dependent on the income from these lands. There are more than 100 coconut trees and they are cultivating paddy and other wet crops. The said land was sought to be acquired under the impugned notification for allegedly providing for the house sites of Adi Dravidars. On an earlier occasion, when the proceeding were initiated by the Central Government, the first petitioner has filed W.P. No.9767 of 1995 which was allowed by this Court on 31.10.1995. Subsequently, under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 the proceedings were again initiated on 27.9.1995. The first petitioner was called upon to attend for an enquiry on 24.10.1995 at 3.00 p.m. Accordingly the first petitioner appeared on behalf of his father who was aged about 78 years and submitted their objections. He also requested the second respondent to give an opportunity to make their objections before the first respondent to drop the further proceedings. Till date no such opportunity has been given. The objections of the petitioners were not considered in proper perspective and the respondents have simply over-ruled their objections without any substance. They did not receive any report on the objections raised by the petitioners. In the affidavit, the first petitioner has also given further details as regards other poramboke lands available in the vicinity.

3. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that based on the representation of the Arunthathiyars of Renugapuram and Jangala-palli Village, necessary proposals were initiated for the acquisition of the lands in question. The Collector, Vellore District had approved the proposals in his proceedings dated 9.1.1996. The award has been passed on 22.3.1996 and the compensation amount has been deposited before the Sub-Court, Vellore. While denying the averments made in the affidavit, the respondents stated that the objections raised by the petitioners were discussed in detail and the report was submitted to the Collector explaining the issue in detail. The Collector, Vellore after due consideration had overruled the objections of the petitioners. Hence, there was no merits in the above writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had raised the following points:

(a) The order is not in conformity with Sec.4(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the District Collector was satisfied about the recommendations by the Special Tahsildar. No such communication had been communicated to the petitioners.

(b) A perusal of the file shows that the Order of the Collector is nothing more than a cyclostyled order and there is no consideration of the objections of the petitioners on merits. In this context, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of K.Govindarajan, J. in S.K.Thirugnana-sambandam and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2001)1 M.L.J. 328. The learned Judge after considering the provisions in detail, held that the Collector should consider the report in a detailed manner and on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document