Order by the collector not passed by an speaking order.

1. The petitioner in W.P.No.17767 of 2000 claim that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.403, Sirukarumbur Village, Arakonam Taluk,Vellore District, measuring 3.60 acres. He also claims that he is cultivating the land with the help of electric motor pumpset, and there are about 600 coconut trees, out of which 400 trees are yielding.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.18589 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of the land bearing S.Nos.50/3 to 11, 50/1 and 2, Thenmambakkam Village, Arakonam Taluk,Vellore District, measuring 5.10 acres.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.18857 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.49/1, 49/2, 50/1 and 50/2, Thenmambakkam Village, Arakonam Taluk,Vellore District, measuring 0.41.5, 0.05.5, 0.22.0 and 0.22.5 hectares. According to him, the said lands have been mortgaged with Kancheepuram City Union Bank and there are poramboke lands, measuring 10 acres available adjacent to Panappakkam colony.

4. All the three petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the proceedings taken by the authorities to acquire the abovesaid lands under the Act 31 of 1978, hereinafter called ‘the Act’.

5. The said acquisition was made for the purpose of providing house-sites to Adi Dravidas at Sirukarumbur Village, Arakonam Taluk. Exercising the powers under Sec.4 of the Act, the 2nd respondent- Collector, authorised the Special Tahsildar (LA), (ADW), Wallajah, the 3rd respondent to proceed with the enquiry and submit the report. The Special Tahsildar issued notice in Form I to the petitioners and they submitted their objections.

6. After holding an enquiry, the Special Tahsildar sent the report to the Collector, and the Collector passed the order exercising the powers under Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act. At this stage, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

7. Mr.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17767 and 18589 of 2000 has submitted that the Collector has not passed the order as required under Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act, especially when the petitioners raised objections saying that when poromboke lands are available, the petitioners’ lands need not be acquired. Referring to Form II, the learned counsel has further submitted that the purpose has not been specifically mentioned in the order of the Collector as notified in the Gazette. He has also submitted that for two villages, there cannot be any single scheme and the notification cannot be published jointly with respect to the said schemes.

8. Mr.Venakataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18857 of 2000 has submitted that the Collector has not applied his mind as to the objections raised in respect of the acquisition. According to him, they have specifically stated that there are poromboke lands measuring 10 acres adjacent to Panapakkam colony which can be used for the present scheme. The petitioner has also mentioned that the land in question was mortgaged with the Kancheepuram City Union Bank.

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.17767 and 18589 of 2000 that there cannot be one publication of the notification for two schemes cannot be countenanced. Merely because the two schemes relating to the lands are published in one notification, it cannot be construed that it is a common scheme. Such publication of notification is only for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the concerned persons about the acquisition of the lands in question. Even in the said notification, two references have been mentioned. So, such submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

10. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Collector has not applied his mind before passing the order with reference to various sustainable objections raised by the petitioners in respect of acquisition of their lands. I find some force in the said argument. In the present cases, after receipt of the report, the Collector ha