Proceedings for acquisition of lands was liable to be quashed.

1. Thepetitioner is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.58-1A, 58-1B, 58-2A1 in Thattanpalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri.

2. The petitioner was not served any notice with regard to acquisition. The petitioner came to understand that a notice was issued, purporting to be under Rule 5 of The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, Act 31 of 1978. The mandatory requirement of notice before publication has not been complied with. The petitioner is a poor agriculturist, depending upon the land for his livelihood. There is a failure to comply with the procedure. On account of the same, a valuable right of the petitioner has been affected. The failure to follow the provisions is thoroughly bad in law. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for the records relating to 4(1) Notification made in Na.Ka.No.55942/97 (K) issued under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, published in the Dharmapuri District Gazette, Extraordinary No.70, dated 111. 1997 relating to the petitioners land in S.Nos.58-1A, 58-1B, 58-2A1, measuring an extent of 0.98.5 hectares and situate in B Thattanpalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits two main contentions. The first is that there is a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions and that no notice was given as required under Sec.4(1). The other contention is that it is the only land belonging to the petitioner and it is an agricultural land and that there are other lands are available for the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 under which the acquisition has been made, reads as follows:

“Before publishing a notice under Sub-sec.(1), the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired.

The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-sec.(2), pass such orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown.

Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-sec.(2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. After considering such report, the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit.”

5. Therefore, a notice is contemplated as a prerequisite for a valid acquisition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice was given nor any inquiry was made. Learned Government Advocate produced the relevant file. Sec.4 clearly provides either the District Collector or any Officer authorised by the District Collector to call upon the owner of the land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. If the show cause notice issued under Sub-sec.(2), the District Collector himself has to pass in order. Where any officer is authorised by the District Collector, the officer shall send a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause and after considering such report, the District Collector may pass such orders as we may deem fit.

6. The file does not contain anything to show that the District Collector had authorised the Harijan Welfare Tahsildar to initiate proceedings. There is neither any order by the Collector nor there is any report by the Officer authorised by the Collector. Apart from that, the Rule 3 clearly provides that the person shall be individually served. But in this case, we find that there is no service at all individually.

7. Individual service means personal service. An individual is