Mandatory provisions of the Act must be complied.

1. W.P.No.12730 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.No.3(D)No.233 Adi Dravidar and Trival Welfare dated 16.3.1993 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 17.3.1993, Part II, Section 2 at page 2 in so far as it relates to the petitioner’s lands comprised in S.No.147/IA in Bommidi Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and quash the acquisition proceedings and forbear the respondents from acquiring the petitione rs agricultural lands. 2. W.P.No.18494 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the acquisition of the lands in Survey No. 185 (part) of an extent of 8.49.5 hectares in Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District and quash the G.O.No.3-D No.122 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.2.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Page 1, Part II Section 2 (Supplement) dated 18.3.1992. 3. W.P.No.22277 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to section 4(1) Notification in G.O.3-D734 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 12.10.1992 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.(3-D) No.643 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 16.9.1993 and quash the same in so far as they relate to the petitioners land in S.No.29/13 of Nelkkarapatti Village, Salem Taluk. 4. W.P.No.12326 of 1994 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.3 (D) No.41, Backward classes and most Backward Classes Welfare dated 12.5.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.5.1994 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners lands in S.Nos.337/4,337/5A,337/5B and 337/5C in Bommarajapuram Village, H/O Suryanagaram. 5. The petitioners, in the above writ petitions, have chosen to challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the date of issuance of notifications differ, as the point involved for consideration in all the above writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions are dealt with together and the following common order is passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are vitiated as there was no compliance of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, which makes obligatory on the part of the respondents to forward the objections received from the land owners to such Department or company who are requiring the land and the Department or company has duty to answer to the objections. Learned counsel have further submitted that in these cases the objections received from the land owners have hot been forwarded to the requisitioning bodies by the collector more so. when the impugned notifications under section 4(1) of the Act have been issued to the respective petitioners after 11.6.1991 on which date, the amendments to the Land Acquisition Rules have come into force. They have further submitted that as per the Rule 3 (b) of the old Tamil Nadu Acquisition Rules and the explanation thereto there was no obligation on the part of the collector to send notice and call for the remarks of the revenue department if the land was required by the revenue department and the revenue department was deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward classes at the District level. Learned counsel have further submitted that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the old Rules. They have further submitted that in the absence of Explanation to Rule 4

(b) of the amended Rules, the authorities have no powe r whatsoever to cloud themselves under the explanation to Rule 3(b) of the old Rules so as to defend that it is not obligatory on their part to forward the objections to the requisitioning body when the Department is the Revenue Department. in the