AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides and perused the records filed in this case as well as the original records circulated by the learned
Government Advocate.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the acquisition of her land in Survey No. 175/2D1 situated at Erumaipatty Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for short ''T.N. Act 31 of 1978''), has filed
the present writ petition.
The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 04.4.1996. An interim order against dispossession of the lands from the petitioner was also
granted. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.3.2002 and was restored on 15.7.2002. The original file was circulated to
justify the acquisition of lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the beneficiaries, who admittedly belong to the Arundhadiyar Community
of that village.
The second respondent being the prescribed authority initiated proposals for the acquisition of lands for the Harijan Welfare Scheme and the
notice dated 04.10.1995 u/s 4(2) was issued and served on the owner of the lands. An enquiry was conducted on 25.10.1995. The land owner
sent his objection by post.
The objections given by the land owners were considered by the authority concerned. He sent his proposal to the District Collector. The District
Collector rejected the objections given by the land owners by his order dated 04.2.1996. Thereafter, a notification u/s 4(1) was published in the
District Government Gazette on 08.2.1996. An Award in Award No. 15/95-96has been passed on 26.3.1996 and the compensation amount has
been deposited into the Sub-Court at Sankari. Possession was taken over by the second respondent on 16.5.2002 after the dismissal of the writ
petition for default. Pattas have also been given to the beneficiaries.
The following contentions were raised by the petitioner:
(a) The District Collector did not apply his mind to the objections and he had not personally satisfied himself with the proposal;
(b) The notification published u/s 4(1) of the T.N.Act 31 of 1978 itself speaks only about the State Government being satisfied;
(c) No personal enquiry was conducted;
(d) The land that is sought to be acquired is the only land by which the petitioner is eking out her livelihood;
(e) The District Collector did not give the report of the Special Tahsildar; and
(f) No notice was given to the petitioner but it was given to her husband who gave the land to her by way of a settlement.
Before the issues can be decided, it must be stated that this matter was filed at the time when a Full Bench of this Court was called upon to
decide conflicting judgments of this Court on the procedure involved under T.N. Act 31 of 1978. P.K. Misra, J., speaking for the Full Bench
rendered its opinion on 25.8.2006. It has been since reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (R. Pari v. The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Devakottai and
Anr.). The Full Bench thereafter directed the individual Writ Petitions to be decided on their merits and in accordance with the direction of the Full
Bench. Thus, this matter and the connected matters came to be grouped together and were posted before this Court on being specially ordered by
the Honourable Chief Justice.
On the basis of the original records, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner''s name was not in the revenue
records. But objections made on her behalf were considered. It is the District Collector who was satisfied about the need for land acquisition.
Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner have no substance.
Since the ruling of the Full Bench in R. Pari''s case (cited supra) is the guiding factor, it is necessary to refer to the following passages found in
paragraphs 37, 42 and 43:
The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the land owner to make a further representation to the District Collector does not
mean that in every case, where such report has not been furnished, the ultimate order passed by the District Collector deciding to acquire the land
is automatically vitiated. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the Court in
each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the
report and affording further opportunity to the land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of
the authorised officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the authorised officer, the
land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the authorised officer has
considered the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendation, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished
and no further opportunity is given to the land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if
important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner, have been ignored by the authorised officer, it may be reasonable to infer non-
furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District
Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as
a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it
is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and
circumstances in particular case.
...
However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat. The observation made by the Division Bench or the Single Judge regarding requirement to
indicate reason while passing the order has to be understood in the context of non-application of mind. Even though in a given case, the order
which is communicated to the land owner does not indicate any reason why the objection has been rejected, if the application of mind is reflected
in the file even by way of notings and endorsements, the ultimate decision to acquire the land cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the
order which is communicated to the land owner/objector does not contain any detailed reasons. The requirement is that the materials on record,
that is to say the relevant file, should indicate application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and not passing of a formal reasoned
order as is required in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The function obviously being administrative in nature, it is futile to expect furnishing of
detailed reasons in the order which is communicated to the person. It is necessary to enter such caveat lest it may be construed that in every case,
where the order of rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the rejection communicated to the land owner does
not contain the reasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately the Court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application
of mind. Therefore, the brief reasons, which are contemplated, can be given either in the file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc. or even can
be reflected in the order. But mere non-reflection of reasons in the order communicated or in the notice published in the Gazette, would not be
sufficient to hold that there has been non-application of mind and the question as to whether there has been application of mind or non-application
is required to be considered on the basis of the return filed and the relevant file to be produced before the Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusions are as follows:
The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks''
time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal
hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings
and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District
Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the decision of
the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the
Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition.
The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate
decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer.
The other contention that the District Collector was not satisfied and it was the Government''s satisfaction, it must be stated that the original file
produced shows that there is no reference to any Government''s intervention in this case. On the other hand, the District Collector''s personal
satisfaction is clearly reflected in the file. The Gazette Notification produced by the petitioner cannot be the basis for determination of the issue. As
directed by the Full Bench in R. Pari''s case, (cited supra), it is ultimately that the file must reflect the satisfaction of the Collector and the Court
must be satisfied with the procedure adopted by the respondents (see the extracts reproduced in para 9).
The Supreme Court vide its decision in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others, , dealt with the question of recording reasons
in case of declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court in that decision in para 49, had observed as follows:
No reasons or other facts need be mentioned in the Section 6 declaration on its face. If the satisfaction is challenged in the Court, the Government
can show the record upon which the Government acted and justify the satisfaction expressed in Section 6 declaration.
These observations will apply in its entirety to the case on hand.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.