Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5616
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
K.A. Ravindran
Versus
District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District and Another
W.P. No.4168 of 1997
Decided on : 17-12-2009
For the Petitioners:K.A. Ravindran, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader.
The judgment establishes the importance of following statutory provisions, the necessity for the Collector to apply mind and record reasons, and the requirement to give the owner an opportunity to file further representation on the report/recommendation made by the Authorized Officer.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act - Land Acquisition - Section 4(1) - Rule 3(1) - Rule 3(2) - Rule 3(3) - Rule 5(1) - Rule 7(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's property was acquired for the Harijan Welfare Scheme under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The petitioner challenged the notification on grounds of non-issuance of notice, failure to conduct enquiry, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mandatory provisions of the Act were not followed, there was a total non-application of mind, and a violation of the Act's provisions, leading to the quashing of the impugned notification.
Issues: Non-issuance of notice under Section 4(2) of the Act, failure to conduct enquiry, violation of principles of natural justice, and non-application of mind by the District Collector.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the stringent procedure under the Act, the necessity of following statutory provisions, and the requirement for the Collector to apply mind and record reasons. It highlighted the need for the Collector to give opportunity to the owner to file further representation on the report/recommendation made by the Authorized Officer.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notification and allowed the writ petition, citing the non-following of mandatory provisions of the Act.
Per K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
This Writ Petition is directed against me notification issued by the District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District Vellore under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan welfare schemes Act, 1978 whereby and whereunder, the property of the petitioner was acquired for the Harijan Welfare Scheme.
Background Facts:
2. The property in S. No. 657/2 in Gudanagaram Village in Parvathipuram, Gudiyatham taluk, measuring an extent of 45. 6 hectares originally belonged to Thiru, K.P. Arunachalam, father of the petitioner. After his death, the property devolved on his wife
and children. The mother of the petitioner and his sisters gave no objection for changing in the name of the petitioner and his brother, Mr. K.A. Soundararajan. Accordingly, the Patta was changed in the name of the petitioner and Mr. Soundararajan and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
3. While the matters stood thus, there was an attempt on the part of the second respondent to measure a portion of the property. This resulted in the petitioner filing a Suit against the second respondent in O.S. No. 928 of 1995 before the learned District Munsif, Gudiyatham for a decree of payment injunction. The Suit was not subsequently proceeded with. While so, the petitioner received a notice on 23. 1997 issued by the second respondent in Form IIII under Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979. The petitioner and the brother were directed to appear for an enquiry on 23. 1997 with respect to the determination of compensation. It was in the said circumstances, the petitioner has obtained a copy of 4 (1) Notification and filed the writ petition.
4. The petitioner challenges the notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, on the following grounds:
.(i) The statuory notice given under Section 4(2) of the Act read with Rule 3(1) of the Rules were not given to the land owners and as such, the whole proceeding is void;
.(ii) The Patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner and his brother long back and as such, the respondents were well aware of the actual ownership and possession of the property. However, for the reasons best known to them, no notice was issued which vitiated the whole proceeding. Enquiry is stated to have been conducted by the second respondent. However, copy of the enquiry report has not been given to the petitioner.
(iii) The report stated to have been submitted by the second respondent was considered by the first respondent before issuing notice under Section 4(1). However, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his views with respect to the report submitted by the second respondent. Therefore, the proceeding is violative of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) There are dry lands available in the locality and as such, it was not prudent to acquire fertile and cultivable lands.
5. In short, the petitioner challenges the notification on the ground of non-issuance of notice under Section 4(2) of the Act; failure to conduct enquiry by the second respondent; failure to furnish the report of second respondent’ and failure on the part of the Collector to arrive at a subjective satisfaction in the matter of proceeding with the acquisition after giving notice to the land owners.
6. The second respondent has filed counter in answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition. The material portion of the counter reads thus:
The District Collector has decided to acquire the property and accordingly, the second respondent was authorized to issue show cause notice in Form I under Rule 3(1) read with Section 4(2) of the Act. Accordingly, notice was served on the land owners on 12. 1995 directing them to appear for an enquiry on 1. 1996. However, none of the land owners appeared for enquiry. In the meantime, they have filed a Suit in O.S. No. 928 of 1996 ag
