Functions of collector discharged by respondent two without authorisation.

1. Heard.

2. In the above writ petition, the petitioners seek for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, made in G.O.Ms.No.466, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 15.3.1988 and published in dailies on 17.3.1988 and Sec.6(1) declaration under the act made in G.O.Ms.(3D) No.566, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 20.8.1992, published in dailies on 21.8.1992 in so far as the land of the petitioners are concerned in S.No.37/20B of an extend of 4.31 acres of land situated in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District and quash G.O.Ms.No.3(D) 566, dated 21.8.1992 and to forbear the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the Sec.6(1) Declaration of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. In brief, under the impugned acquisition proceedings the respondents proposed to acquire an extent of 4.31 acres, located in S.No.37/20B in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District for providing housing plots to Adi Dravidars. it is not in dispute that the respondents issued a notification under Sec.4(1) dated 15.3.1988, publishing the same in the Government Gazette dated 20.4.1988 in two Tamil dailies, namely, Dhinathandhi and Dinamani on 22.4.1988 and in the locality on 26.6.1988, and thereafter, held an enquiry contemplated under Sec.5-A on 25.8.1988. However, the petitioners did not appear in the said enquiry.

4. In pursuance of the said enquiry, an award was passed, but, however, possession was not taken due to the pendency of the above writ petition. But the acquisition proceedings was challenged in W.P.No.10159 of 1988, which was dismissed by this Court on 31.10.1991, as the same was premature, and subsequently, a fresh enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was held on 13.3.1992, and the petitioners conjected the acquisition However, the objections were ever-ruled. A Declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was passed by G.O.Ms.3(D) No.566, dated 20.8.1992 and thereafter, an enquiry for passing of the award was conducted, and the award was also passed, but however, possession of the impugned lands were not taken, due to the pendency of the above writ petition.

5. Mr.R.Krishanmurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenges the impugned acquisition proceedings on two grounds, namely,

(i) there was a gap of 66 days between the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act published in the Government Gazette and the date of publication in the locality;

(ii) the notification published in the newspapers did not authorise the second respondent to hold an enquiry after receiving the objection under Sec.5-A of the Act;

and therefore, the rejection of the petition is per se illegal, for want of authority and jurisdiction, as the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act issued in the locality, does not authorise the second respondent to perform the obligation of the Collector, within the meaning of Sec.3(c) of the Act, In this regard, he places reliance on the decisions in:

(i) Nutakki Sesharatanam v. Sub Collector, Land Acquisition, Vijaywada Nutakki Sesharatanam v. Sub Collector, Land Acquisition, Vijaywada Nutakki Sesharatanam v. Sub Collector, Land Acquisition, Vijaywada, (1992)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 26.

(ii) Thirumathi Reeta v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 W.L.R. 277 and

(iii) The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9 and another v. Natarajan The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9 and another v. Natarajan The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9 and another v. Natarajan, (1997)2 MLJ. 604.

6. Per contra, Mr.V.N.Rajavelu, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the decisions in:

(i) Mara Naicker v. Special Tahsildar, (1997)1 MLJ. 347

(ii) Maria Rosal De Rose v. State of Tamilnadu Maria Rosal De Ros