The satisfaction for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978 should be on the part of the District Collector, and the non-service of notice as per Rule 3(i) of the Act can vitiate the land acquisition proceedings.

This writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 in and by which lands to an extent of 2.1-0 hectares comprised in S. No. 289/2, 289/5, 289/6, 290/9 and 290/10 in Irur Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the respondents.

2. The main ground on which the land acquisition proceedings are challenged is that notice required under Section 4(2) of the Act as prescribed under Rule 3(i) has not been served on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not living in the village but living-In Madras. As per Rule 3(i) of the Act which states as follows:

“ Rule 3 Procedure for acquiring land - ( i) The District Collector or the officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show cause notice in Form I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired. If the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, the show cause notice shall be sent by registered post (Acknowledgment Due) to the last known address of the owner or any other person interested.”

3. Heard Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents and perused the entire files.

4. In the present case, it is seen in the files produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader at page Nos. 45 & 46 that Form No.l which is as per Rule 3(i) of the Act dated 10.7.1998, is endorsed to have been served to the petitioner at M.75,Vannarar Street, Besant Nagar,Adyar, Chennai-20 by courier service but there is no evidence or proof to show that such service has been effected by courier, since the receipt of courier is not available in the records. The address of the petitioner as given in the writ petition is M.75/3, M.I.G.,31 Cross Street, Besant Nagar,Chennai-600 090, while the notice sent to the petitioner through courier is stated to be at M.75,Vannarar Street, Besant Nagar,Adyar, Chennai-20.

5. In any event, as per Rule 3(1) of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Act, 31 of 1978 the/‘mode of service under such circumstances is by way of Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) and admittedly steps has not been taken as per the Rules as stated above.

6. A reference to Section 4(1) notification issued by the Collector shows that the Government of Tamil Nadu is satisfied for acquiring the lands stated in the said notification and it is required for the benefit of providing house sites to Adi-dravidar community. Even though notification is issued by the District Collector in the District Gazette, a reference to the notification shows that the satisfaction for the purpose of acquisition is on the part of the Government.

7. The question as to whether the satisfaction of the. Government for acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Act 31 of 1978 is valid came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal (2002) 2 CTC 1, wherein, the Honourable First Bench has distinguished the Central Act to that of the State Act 31 of 1978 in the sense that in the Central Act the land acquisition is to the satisfaction of the Government while under the State Act viz., Act 31 of 1978, it is the District Collector who alone is expected to be satisfied for the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired. It is held in para 4 as follows:

“ 4……A decision to acquire a land by the Collector has to be exercised only by the Collector by application of mind independently and the Legislature did not provide any power of delegation. This Legislature did not even reserve any power in the State to have a s