By non-furnishing copy of report, no prejudice caused to appellant/owner.

P. Jyothimani, J.

The appellant has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.667 of 1999, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Thanjavur, dated 110. 1998, passed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, (in short, "the Act"), deciding to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.486/1A, measuring an extent of 0.57.0 hectares in Thiruvaiyaru West Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District, contending interalia that he being the owner, was not given an opportunity to submit his objections and also copy of the report submitted by the enquiring of the Collector, has not been furnished. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, holding that in respect of the acquisition, award was passed as early as on 212. 1998, while the writ petition came to be filed only afterwards, viz., on 12.01.1999. It is, as against the said order dismissing the writ petition, present appeal is filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. It was the submission of the appellant that no opportunity was given to him to file his objections, and therefore, the procedure contemplated under the Act has been violated. The learned Government Pleader was directed to produce entire records relating to the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has produced the same. On perusal of the file, the following facts are revealed:

"(i) The notice as required under Section 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 (in short, "the Rules") in Form No.I was issued by the second respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, on 30.01.1998, and the same was served on the appellant on 31.01.1998;

(ii) After receiving the said notice, the appellant, by his letter dated 16.02.1998, submitted his objections;

(iii) Thereafter, the second respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, has submitted a report dated 09.03.1998, to the Collector, as per Section 4(3)(b) of the Act, containing his recommendations;

.(iv) The District Collector, viz., the first respondent, has passed order dated 110. 1998 under Section 4(1) of the Act, having satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land in question for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Schemes;

.(v) The said notification has been published in the District Gazette on 210. 1998;

.(vi) The enquiry notice in Form No.III, for determining the compensation amount was issued on 011. 1998;

(vii) The petitioner has submitted his objections on 211. 1998; and

(viii) The award was passed on 212. 1998.

4. Admittedly, the writ petition came to be filed on 12.01.1999. The objections submitted by the appellant both on 16.02.1998 and on 211. 1998, is that he was not having any other land other than the land sought to be acquired, of course, also disputing the quantum.

5. It is admitted that the appellant has given objections after notice of proposal of acquisition under Section 4(2) and also after the final notification issued under Section 4

(1) of the Act, viz., on 011. 1998, objecting to the quantum of compensation. The only objection raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the enquiry report dated 09.03.1998, submitted by the second respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, to the District Collector has not been served, calling upon him to submit his objections. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that, in cases where other than the District Collector, any other officer authorised by him has conducted enquiry pursuant to the notice issued under Section 4(2) of the Act, the said officer shall submit a report to the Collector along with his recommendations and it is, after considerin