AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The writ appeal is against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single judge by which the petitioner had
challenged the proceedings of acquisition under Section.4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Act XXXI of
1978). The learned single Judge has held that all the necessary steps as required by law were taken before the acquisition and, therefore, the
acquisition was in order.
The learned counsel Mr. Srinivas, however, raises a naval point. He contends that in this case, notice u/s 4(2) was given by the Special
Tahsildar but, there is no evidence to suggest that the Collector was satisfied in the beginning in respect of the land which was to be acquired and
had recorded his satisfaction somewhere. According to the learned counsel unless the process of the acquisition is initiated by the Collector, who is
the exclusive authority to do so, the further exercise taken by the Special Tahsildar on his authorisation is clearly incorrect. We do not agree with
the contention for the reasons following.
Thus satisfaction, which is spoken of in sub-section (1) of Section 4 is the final satisfaction by the Collector which he is supposed to record by
publication of the notice in the District Gazette. That is the only requirement of Section 4(1) of the Act. The whole section, either sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), does not anywhere require any initial initiation by the Collector of the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore,
the Collector is not required to record somewhere that he is satisfied in respect of a particular land or, in his opinion, the said land would be
required to be acquired for the purposes of this Act. In this case, in their counter, the State Government has clearly pointed out the powers were
delegated by the Collector in favour of the Special Tahsildar, who issued the notice under sub-section (2), which is a sine qua non for the further
proceedings by the collector u/s 4(1). In view of that clear position, it will not be necessary for the Collector to initiate the proceedings in the sense
that the learned counsel wants to urge. We are completely satisfied that the Collector had authorised the concerned Special Tahsildar to issue a
notice under sub-section (2) and that after the consideration of the report made by the Special Tahsildar had come to the conclusion that the land
was required to be acquired for the purposes of the Act and for that purpose the Collector had proceeded to publish the notice in the District
Gazette. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge. The appeal is without any merit. It is dismissed. No costs.