AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. N. Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleaderfor Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Mani, learned Counsel forthe third Respondent.
The writ petition is filed challenging the orderpassed by the first Respondent u/s 4(1) of theTamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as "Act").
Even though other grounds have been raised to theeffect that the purpose for which the land of thePetitioners sought to be acquired viz., for the purpose ofgiving approach road to reach Adi Dravidas Colony, thecolony itself has been shifted towards the main road,therefore, the approach road is not required.
A reference to order passed u/s 4(1) ofthe Act, as it is seen in the impugned notification issued shows that it is subject to the satisfaction of the Government. The said order u/s 4(1) of the Act has been passed by the first Respondent on 01.01.2004. The relevant portion of the notification is as follows:
Whereas, it appears to the Government ofTamil Nadu that the lands specified in theschedule below and situated in the followingVillages, Taluks, Salem District are needed forthe purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme to wit,notice to that effect is hereby given to all towhom it may concern in accordance with theprovision of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of theTamil Nadu Acquisition of land for HarijanWelfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of1978).
Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 reads as follows:
Power to acquire land - (1) Where theDistrict Collector is satisfied that, for thepurpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it isnecessary to acquire any land, he may acquire theland by publishing in the District Gazette anotice to the effect that he has decided toacquire the land in pursuance of this Section.
Hence, it is clearly specified in the Act that if the District Collector is satisfied that the lands are requiredfor the Harijan Welfare Scheme, and if it is necessary toacquire such lands, he may public notification underSection 4(1) of the Act and this has been construed by thisCourt in many occasions to the effect that the DistrictCollector has to independently apply his mind for thepurpose of passing orders u/s 4(1) of the Act.
I had an occasion to consider the said issue in V. Kanna and V. Krishnan Vs. The District Collector and The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Dept., , wherein, by following theearlier Full Bench judgment in Sharp Tools v. State ofTamil Nadu reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1460 : 2006 (4) CTC 785, it was held as follows:
Applying the ratio laid down by the FullBench in respect of the Central Act to thepresent case which relates to Act 31 of 1978,there is no difficulty to conclude that Form I Iprescribed under the Rules stating as if "itappears to the Government of Tamil Nadu'' has nomeaning read with Rule 3 of the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare SchemeRules and Section 4(1) of Act 31/1978. Theconcerned authorities must take steps to amendthe Form II. Therefore, the contention of theRespondents as if the Respondents have followed only the Form prescribed under the Rule does notsave the acquisition proceeding inasmuch as theDistrict Collector, who is the authority tosatisfy himself for the purpose of acquisition,has failed to apply his mind.
In view of the above decision, only on the groundthat the order has been passed not to the satisfaction ofthe District Collector, the impugned notification is setaside, however, with liberty to the Respondents 1 and 2 toproceed further and the competent authority shall passappropriate orders in accordance with law as per the Act.
The writ petition is allowed with the abovedirection. No costs.