The main legal point established is that the land acquisition process under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 was followed correctly, and the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the acquisition.

1. On 29.06.2018, the following order was passed:-

The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to Notification dated 19.05.1998 vide Gazattee publication in M1/751/98, passed by the first respondent regarding acquisition of land in respect of the property of the petitioner in old S.No.33/3B and new S.No.86/9B 0.10.0 hectares at Komadipattu Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, and quash the same.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, on requisition of the Irular community of Komadipattu Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram, instructed the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Special Tahsildar, Tindivanam, and called for a proposal to provide burial ground to the Irular community of the Komadipattu Village. Inspections were conducted for finding a suitable place for the purpose of burial ground. An extent of 0.10.0 hectares of dry land out of 1.28.0 hectares in R.S.No.86/9 in Komadipattu Village was identified and selected. The procedure for acquiring land as laid down in Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979, (hereafter referred to as "the Rules") which has been made in excise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, (hereafter referred to as "the Act") were followed. Notice in Form-I under Rule 3(1) read with Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, was published. Objections were called for and the land was acquired.

The acquisition of land has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

3. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the land by a sale deed dated 12.04.2007 from one Pandarinathan. He further submits that there was no service of the notification dated 19.05.1998 issued under Rule 3 of the Rules, read with Section 4 of the Act, to the owner. Since there was no service of notice to the owner, the entire acquisition is bad. He further submits that in any event, one Murugan had gifted a portion of land on 13.02.1998 for the purpose of burial ground in the Village and since the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired has been achieved, no useful purpose would be served in acquiring the land afresh.

4. On the other hand, the State through Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, submits that on the date of the notification dated 19.05.1998 was issued under the Rules and the Act, the petitioner Padmanaban was not the owner. He further submits that as per the village records, the land was owned by one Loganatha Naicker. He submits that necessary notice in Form-I under Rule 3(1) read with Section 4(2) of the Act, was served on the said Loganathan Naicker, the owner, inviting objections for the acquisition. No objections were received from any corner. He submits that an enquiry contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act was conducted on 24.04.1998 in the office of Village Administrative Officer and at the time of enquiry also no objection was received. He further submits that notice in Form-III Rule 5(1) of the Rules, was issued fixing the date of award of enquiry on 21.10.1998, on which date, Loganatha Naickar appeared before the enquiry officer and he had no objection to acquire the land for the purpose of burial ground to the Irular community. He further submits that an award was passed on 09.11.1998, in Award No.5/98-99 and the compensation amount has been paid to Loganatha Naicker and necessary changes have been made in the village records. He further submits that the land given by Murugan, for the purpose of burial ground was not suitable, because, it was near a Channel and during rainy season, dead bodies get washed away. Therefore, he submits that the present land is necessary for the purpose of providing a burial ground. He further submits that in any event, once notice in Form-III under Rule 5 of