High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
K. Subbia Gounder and 8 others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Madras.9 & another
W.P.No. 13192 of 1994
Decided on : 26-06-2002
Land Acquisition - Statutory Compliance - Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 18 of 1995 - Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules (G.O. No. 892) Revenue dated 11.6.1981
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings of the first respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 18 of 1995 in G.O. (3D) No.331, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.05.1992 and in Declaration under Section 6 made in G.O. (3D) No. 721, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.10.1993. The petitioners are the owners of punja lands in Mangalam Village and objected to the acquisition, citing lack of proper publication and non-compliance with statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the newspapers used for publication did not have proper circulation in the locality, violating the statutory requirements of Section 4 (1) of the Act. Additionally, the obligation to forward objections to the Acquiring Department and communicate their views to the landowners, as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, was not met.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of publication in newspapers, compliance with statutory requirements under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and the obligation to forward objections to the Acquiring Department as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proper compliance with the statutory requirement of publication in newspapers with wide circulation in the locality is fundamental and cannot be reduced to an empty formality. It also emphasized the mandatory nature of forwarding objections to the Acquiring Department and communicating their views to the landowners as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh only in accordance with law. No costs were awarded, and the connected W.M.P. was closed.
1. Thepetitioners seek for a writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 18 of 1995 in G.O. (3D) No.331, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.05.1992 and in Declaration under Section 6 made in G.O. (3D) No. 721, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.10.1993 and quash the same.
2. The petitioners are the owners of the lands in Survey No. 153 of an extent of 1.12 acres and survey No. 154 to an extent of 1.78 acres, and a total extent of 2.90 acres in Mangalam Village. Originally the lands belonged to the joint family of the petitioners. Though the lands are classified in the Revenue Records as dry lands they are punja lands. The respondents under the pretext of providing house sites to 50 Adi Dravidars residing at Agrahaputhur and Chinnaputhur initiated proceedings under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are given to understand that the said Notification was published in a daily called 'Makkal Kural', Madras Edition dated 11.6.1992 and another daily called 'Pirpagal' Coimbatore Edition on the same day on 11.6.1992. The petitioners contend that so far as the Makkal Kural is concerned, the Notification was given only in Madras Edition and the other daily 'Pirpagal' has no circulation at all to the knowledge of the petitioners and the said paper has no circulation within Coimbatore District. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the said newspapers' publication. The petitioners coming to know of this acquisition, filed their objections on 14.12.1992. The notice dated 26.11.1992 under the revised Rule 4 has been served on the petitioners and it is only in furtherance of the said notice, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation. The petitioners further submit that in view of the specific provisions of Rule 4, objections have to be forwarded to the Acquisitioning Department and only after ascertaining their views on the objections, it should be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter only, fresh enquiry will have to be conducted. But to the surprise of the petitioners, no further enquiry was conducted. It is only when the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.4.1993 was received by the petitioners, it was made known that the objections of the petitioners were over- ruled. Therefore, there was clear violation of statutory provisions of the Act and Rules. It is further stated that there are Government poromboke lands within the vicinity and if only objections have been forwarded to the Requisitioning Department, the objections of the petitioners would have been considered in proper manner. Hence, the above writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Tamil Dailies, namely, Makkal Kuarl and Pirpagal have proper circulation in Coimbatore District. The allegation that they have no circulation in Coimbatore District was denied. The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has also been widely published in the locality. The objections of the petitioners were received and all the objections were considered. The Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) is also the Land Acquisition Officer and the objections filed by the petitioners were properly considered by the competent authority. The objections of the petitioners were found irrelevant on the facts and the Administrative Officer rejected the claims of the land owners. With reference to the non communication of the remarks of the Acquiring Department, the respondents submitted that the Special Tahsildar, Tiruppur is empowered to function and discharge the duties of the Collectors of the District in the matter of Land Acquisition for Adi Dravidars and Tribal Welfare Department and there is no need to convey objections to the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department.
4. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the publications made in two daily
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.