Special Tahsildar cannot conduct land acquisition proceedings.

Common Judgment:

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.08.2003 made in W.P.No.12029 of 1996, allowing the writ petition and quashing the acquisition proceedings, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed W.A.No.1289 of 2004.

2. Challenging the order dated 17.04.2004 made in W.P.Nos.12030 and 12031 of 1996, dismissing the said writ petitions, the legal heirs of original writ petitioner, A.P. Damodarasamy have filed W.A.Nos.4162 and 4163 of 2004.

3. In view of death of the original writ petitioner, viz., A.P. Damodarasamy, his legal heirs, viz., wife Andal Ammal and son D. Jayachandran, filed WAMP.No.67 of 2007 to implead them as respondents 4 and 5 in W.A.No.1289 of 2004. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, we ordered the said petition.

4. In W.A.Nos.4162 and 4163 of 2004, the appellants have filed WAMP.Nos.68 and 69 of 2007, seeking permission to raise additional grounds in the appeals. By order dated 29.03.2007, we allowed both the said applications.

5. At the request of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition (Central) Act, 1962, for construction of houses under Ganapathi Neighbourhood Scheme Phase II. As stated earlier, in WP.No.12029 of 1996, the learned single Judge (C. Nagappan, J.), quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that publication of Notification under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act was not published in one English daily. In the other two writ petitions filed by Late Damodarasamy, the learned single Judge (D. Murugesan, J.), rejecting all the contentions, refused to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and dismissed both the said writ petitions.

6. We heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the land owners, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General-I for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Mr. K. Elango, Special Government Pleader for the State.

7. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the land owners has raised the following contentions:

(i)The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the Government of Tamil Nadu, authorised the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit III to perform the functions under Section 3 (c) of the Act, but the notice and proceedings under Sections 5-A and 5-A(2) of the Act show that the same had been conducted by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Housing Scheme Unit II. In the absence of amendment to the notification, the action taken by the Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit II cannot be sustained; as such the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed;

(ii)The Government has not considered the report of the Collector, instead declaration was passed on the basis of the report of the Special Commissioner, who has no role in the present acquisition proceedings; hence, the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act is not a valid one and on this ground the acquisition proceedings are liable to be interfered; and

(iii)The award passed in all these cases were not duly approved by the Government or the authority authorised; hence, on this ground also the acquisition proceedings are liable to be interfered.

8. With regard to first contention, it is brought to our notice that in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu, authorised the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit III to perform the functions under Section 3(c) of the Act. A perusal of the notice issued under Section 5-A as well as the proceedings under Section 5-A (2) show that the entire proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act had been conducted only by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme Unit II. As rightly pointed out by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the land owners, the authorisation given by the State Government