SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Mad) 88

High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. SUBHASHAN REDDY & A. SUBBULAKSHMY
The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravida Welfare, Coimbatore and and another
Versus
R. Manickammal and others
W.A. Nos.186 to 189 of 2001 and 485 to 488 of 2000 and C.M.P.Nos.1213 to 1216 of 2001 and 589 to 592 of 2000
Decided On: 12-02-2002

Advocates Appeared
Mrs. T.Kokilavani, Government Advocate for Appellant. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate for Respondent.

The main legal point established is that under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the Collector is the sole authority to exercise the power of land acquisition, and Governmental intervention in this process is unwarranted.

Headnote:

Government Intervention - Land Acquisition - Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 - Section 4

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the acquisition of lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidas under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. The Collector opined that the value of the land was high and prohibitive and it was not desirable to acquire the lands for the notified public purposes. However, the Government intervened and directed the Collector to proceed with the acquisition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Act 31 of 1978 differs from the Central Act in terms of the authority to exercise the power of land acquisition. The State Act designates the Collector as the sole authority to exercise the power, and the Governmental intervention was held to be unwarranted and without jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Government to intervene in the land acquisition process under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, despite the Collector's opinion against the acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 4 of the State Act, which clearly designated the Collector as the sole authority to exercise the power of land acquisition. It emphasized that when the Legislature names a particular authority to exercise powers, only that authority has the jurisdiction to do so.

Final Decision: The court concurred with the learned single Judge's decision that the Governmental intervention was unwarranted and without jurisdiction, and dismissed the Writ Appeals.

Judgment :

B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ.

1. These Writ Appeals have been preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions relating to the power of the Government to intervene in the acquisitions made under the State Act 31 of 1978.

2. The lands comprised in S.Nos.287B, 289, 291/1, 288, 290, 291/2 situate at Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore have been acquired for public purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. Firstly the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition Act of 1894 were invoked and a draft notification under Section 4(1) was gazetted in the year 1989. The said proceedings were questioned in the Writ Petition Nos. 11721 to 11723 and 2685 of 1991 and by judgment dated 27.11.1995 this Court quashed the said proceedings on the ground that Special Enactment i.e., Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 is applicable and not the Central Act. The said judgment had become final and then the Government directed the Collector to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 titled as the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978.

3. Pursuant to the same, the Collector has initiated proceedings and issued draft notification under Section 4(1), which has been gazetted on 17.7.1997. Objections were raised against the acquisition and the Collector has made an enquiry into the same. The Collector has opined that the value of the land was high and prohibitive and it was not desirable to acquire the lands for the public purposes notified. But the Secretary to Government has intervened in the matter and issued a mandate to the Collector to go ahead with the acquisition, in spite of the report of the Collector to the contra. A question was raised before the learned single Judge challenging the jurisdiction of the Government to intervene on the ground that it was for the Collector to exercise the said power and the Collector having been satisfied that the lands should not be acquired, the Government ought not to have interfered in the matter.

4. We have perused the scheme of State Act 31 of 1978. The scheme of State Act differs from that of Central Act. In the Central Act the Government is the authority to exercise the power, and the Government by notification can delegate the functions to any authority to perform the functions under the Act and among the authority so delegated, the Collector also is one of the same. The State Act is completely different as the Governmental intervention is not at all contemplated and the donee of the power is the Collector himself and not anybody else . Section 4 of the State Act reads as follows:-

“4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the (appropriate Government) that land in any locality (is needed or) is likely to be needed for any public purpose (or for a company) a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette (and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language) and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification).

2. Thereupon it shall be lawful for any Officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;

to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the l


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top