The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Collector's independent satisfaction before initiating land acquisition proceedings under Act 31 of 1978, Section 4(1). The judgment emphasized the stringent interpretation of the Act and the importance of the Collector's decision in acquiring land for the Harijan Welfare Scheme.

1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the respondents under the provisions of Act 31 of 1978, whereby the property of the petitioners mere acquired for the purpose of formation of a pathway to the burial ground for the benefit of Adi Dravidare of Thekkal Naickenpatti Village, Pappiredipatti Taluk in Dharmapuri District.

2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are an under:

The property in Survey No. 150/10 in Thekkal Naickenpatti Village, having an extent of.70 hectares absolutely belongs the petitioners. When they came to know of the proposal of the respondents to acquire the said property for the purpose of Adi Dravidars of the area, they have submitted a representation to the first respondent on 212. 1996. However without considering the said representation the second respondent issued a notice under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules 1979. In response to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted their objection. Subsequently the first respondent had published a notification in the-District Gazette on 16. 1998 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Act, 1979 (hereinafter refer red to as “Act 31 of 1978”). The said notification is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. According to the petitioners, the acquisition in question is invalid for the following reasons.

(a) The petitioners are all small farmers eking their livelihood out of the meager income derived from the said land and in case of acquisition of land, they would be put to difficulties.

(b) The impugned acquisition is violative of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 378 dated 23. 1986 as the said Government Order prohibits the acquisition of land of the Scheduled Caste for any purpose.

(c) There was no subjective satisfaction by the Collector before passing the order under Section 4(1) of the Act.

4. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein they have contended that originally acquisition was proposed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per notification under Section 4(1) dated 21. 1977 and subsequently after the introduction of Act 31 of 1978, the acquisition was continued under the said Act. Proceedings were subsequently commenced by issue of notice under Section 4(2) of Act 31 of 1978 and the statutory notice under Rule 3(1) was served on the pattadars and enquiry was conducted on 23. 1998.

5. It was only after consideration of the objection filed by the petitioners that the proposal was approved by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the Act and accordingly the same was published in Dharmapuri District Gazette dated 16. 1998. Subsequently award enquiry under Section 5(2) was conducted on 20.8.1998 and in the said enquiry the daughter in law of the first petitioner took part and presented her objection and on consideration of the objection submitted by the land owners in respect of Survey Nos. 150/13 and 150/16, award was passed by overruling the objection. The second respondent, has also admitted the receipt of representation from the first petitioner on 212. 1996 requesting the respondents to abstain from acquiring the property in Survey No. 150/10. However the action taken by the respondents for acquiring the property was justified on the ground that the proceedings were already initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The second respondent also contended that the property of the petitioners are fit for the purpose of making a path way to the burial ground in existence and no other lands were available for the said purpose.

6. Thiru Kandavadivel Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no attempt made by the District Collector to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners and without satisfying himself about the need and necessity to acquire the land of the petitioners, the first respondent has issued the notification under Se