AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The above Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated 02.09.2009 made in W.A. Nos. 845 to 847 of 2009. It appears that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the Writ Appeals did not appear before the Division Bench and the appeals were dismissed by taking note of the fact that the Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners after the award was passed in the land acquisitions proceedings initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). The Review Applications have been filed contending that the Writ Appeals were listed before the Division Bench as item No. 62 on 02.09.2009, but the case reached even before the counsel could anticipate that the matter be taken up and therefore, the counsel could not appear and make an effective representation before the Division Bench. Further, when the Review Petition came up for hearing before this Court, taking note of the fact that the learned counsel did not appear in the Writ Appeals, the petitioners were granted liberty to raise additional grounds. Accordingly, additional grounds were raised.
The contentions raised by the petitioners are the notice in Form 1 u/s 4(1) of the Act was given on 04.11.1998 and the petitioners have submitted their objections. An enquiry was conducted 25.11.1998 and the District Collector passed an order overruling the objections of the land owners, by order dated 16.2.1999. However, even prior to the said order, the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 25.1.1999. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated, since the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued much prior to the District Collector passing orders overruling the objections of the land owners, which was made only on 16.2.1999 and recording his satisfaction that the lands need to be acquired for the said purpose.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the objections given by the petitioners were not considered and that the petitioners had already suffered an earlier acquisition proceedings and substantial extent of land, which were acquired are still remaining vacant, as the beneficiaries to whom it was allotted had sold the lands and therefore, there was no need to acquire the petitioners'' lands.
In order to satisfy ourselves as to the correctness of the submissions made, we directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the file. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the learned Government Advocate, produced the entire land acquisition file.
From the file, we find that notice in Form 1 was issued to the land owners on 04.11.1998; the land owners have submitted their objections in writing; thereafter, enquiry has been conducted on 25.11.1998. In page 177 of the file, we find the report submitted by the Special Tahsildar dated 10.2.1999. In the said report, the objections given by the land owners have been tabulated and against the said objections, the Special Tahsildar has given his views as to why the objections are not tenable. The petitioners would contend that already an earlier acquisition was done and the petitioners did not own any other land and therefore, the land acquisition proposal should be dropped. The Tahsildar, while recording his opinion has pointed out that except for these lands, there are no other lands adjoining to the existing scheme, which was developed pursuant to the earlier acquisition proceedings and the lands are imminent requirement for the purpose of allotting the same to the houseless Adidravidars of the said village. Similarly, other objections have also been dealt with in seriatim and the Special Tahsildar has recorded the reasons as to why the lands required are to be acquired. The District Collector, who is the competent authority has perused the objections as well as the views recorded by the Special Tahsildar, overruled the objections by recording reasons. This is evident from page 182 of the file. The District Collector has recorded the objections and by order dated 10.2.1999 directed the Notification be published in the District Gazette u/s 4(1) of the Act.
It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the copy of the said proceedings have been filed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Review Applications. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar was not forwarded to them appears to be incorrect and in any event, in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (R. Pari v. The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Devakottai and another), the mere non-furnishing of the copy of the report does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
As noticed above, the District Collector has overruled the objections on 10.2.1999 and directed notification be issued u/s 4(1) of the Act by publishing the same in the District Gazette. Therefore, the notification could have been published only after 10.2.1999. When we peruse the original gazette notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act, we find that at the top of the notification, it was mentioned as January 25, 1999, but at the bottom of the notification, where the name of the District and the name of the Collector has been mentioned, the date has been clearly mentioned 10th February, 1999. Therefore, we agree that the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the date given as 25.1.1999 is a mistake and therefore, on that ground the acquisition proceedings cannot be set aside. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals on the ground that the petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions after the award has been passed. In the instant case, the award was passed on 24.3.1999 and admittedly, the Writ Petitions were filed only on 30.3.1999. Therefore, the Writ Petitions filed after the award are not maintainable.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, submitted that in the said case before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings after five weeks after the award was passed and the Honourable Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground of delay or latches. In the case before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings before the High Court admittedly after a period of five weeks from the date of passing the award on the ground that the Writ Petition was barred by delay and latches. In support of such a conclusion, the Division Bench relied on earlier decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. While considering the correctness of the decision of the High Court, the Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that the Writ Petition was filed within five weeks and in the other cases, which was relied on by the Honourable High Court, where Writ Petitions were filed after 13 years, 21 years, 32 years and 2 years after taking over possession and therefore, those decisions are distinguishable on facts and accordingly allowed the appeals and directed the High Court to consider the merits of the matter. Further more, in the said case, there was a specific ground taken that the acquisition was vitiated on the ground of non-publication of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned and that the owner or occupier was entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the date of the publication in the locality and by non-publication of the same as prescribed under the Act, the owner or occupier lost his valuable right.
On the above ground, the Honourable Supreme Court interfered in the matter and directed the High Court to examine it on merits.
In the instant case, the Writ Petitions were not dismissed on the ground of delay or latches nor on the ground that the Writ Petitions were filed after passing of the award. Learned single Judge while considering the Writ Petitions examined the merits of the case and considered all the grounds and after going through the files, recorded the findings of fact that the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have been scrupulously followed and there was no error committed by the authorities, which would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by the petitioners took into consideration one of the grounds, namely, the Writ Petitions were filed after passing of the award, which was passed on 24.3.1999. Considering the ground taken by the petitioners as regards the date of publication of the notification even before passing of the order by the District Collector overruling the objections, we directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the file. On going through the file, we are satisfied that there are no error in the order of the learned single Judge. Hence, no case has been made out by the petitioners to entertain the Review Applications. Accordingly, the above Review Applications are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.