A. Doulath Nisha vs The District Collector and Another

R. Sudhakar, J.—The above writ petition relates to the challenge of the proceedings of the District Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga

Devar District''s special publication in W1/2627/96 dated 28.08.1996 (No.77) directing the publication of Section 4(1) notification. Section 4(1)

notification was published in the District Gazette notification on 17.09.1996. The acquisition of land in question is in survey Nos.422/2 and 422/5

of Paruthiyur sub-village, Thidakottai Village, Devokottai Taluk, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District. A notice dated 09.12.1996 was issued

in Form III under Rule 5(i) of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act XXXI of

1978) to the petitioner on 12.12.1996. The writ petition was admitted on 24.12.1996 and interim stay of dispossession was granted and the same

was made absolute on 08.09.2003. The possession of the properly is with the writ petitioner.

The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice in Form I under Rule 3(i) as contemplated u/s 4(2) of Act

31/78 was not served on the petitioner and therefore, the mandatory compliance as required under the said Act is breached and consequently, the

acquisition proceedings have to be set aside.

It is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the land ever-since the death of her husband in the year 1985. Petitioner claims that after the

demise of her husband, she is cultivating the lands with her minor children. The petitioner has not been served with the notice as stated above and

notice has not been sent to the minor children who are also co-owners of the property after the death of the father. It is also submitted that if the

petitioner had been put on notice regarding the proposed acquisition, she could have submitted her genuine objections that the land in question is

the only source of livelihood and seeks exemption from acquisition proceedings. The failure to issue notice as contemplated is fatal to the

acquisition proceedings.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent-The Special Tahsildar stating that on 12.12.1995, the notice was served on the

petitioner asking her to appear for the enquiry on 21.12.1995. It is stated that she filed her objections. Subsequently, the objections were taken

into consideration and the same were rejected and the award enquiry notice was served and the award was also passed on 26.12.1996. In

paragraph 5 of the counter, it is accepted that the land sought to be acquired is the only source of livelihood to the petitioner. In the counter

affidavit, it has been repeatedly stated that notice in Form I was served on the petitioner and she appeared and filed her objections.

The learned Government Advocate fairly submits that there is nothing on record and the file would show that the notice under Form I, Rule 3(i)

was served on the petitioner and that she had filed her objections.

Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978) clearly states as follows:

4.Power to acquire land-- (1)...

(2) Before publishing a notice under Sub-section (1), the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in his behalf, shall call

upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to

show cause why it should not be acquired.

In view of the above, since no notice has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated u/s 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for

Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978), the land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land become invalid. In this

regard, following judgments of this Court affirm the view that notice to the owner is mandatory.

(i) S.P. Vedanayagam Vs. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, ;

(ii) Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Bainsingh Vs. District Collector Tirunelveli Kattabamman District and others, ;

(iii) Thangamuthu Gounder Vs. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Department Fort. St. George, Madras 600 009 and 4

others, ; and

(iv) T. Lakshman v. The Collector of Dharmapuri 2000 (2) All ILAC 510.

In the result the challenge in the writ petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed.