Ramkumar represented by mother and natural guardian Mrs. Jayalakshmi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others <BR>Rajaram Naidu (Died) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu and another

Govindasamy, J.—The petitioner has challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government under the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') in pursuance of the Notification issued under S.4(1) of the Act G.O. Ms. No. 2473, Social

Welfare Department dated 3.10.1983 to acquire lands of an extend of 1.62.05 hectares and 1.88.0 hectares comprised in Survey Nos. 63/3B,

63/15-B and 63/7'' including that of the petitioner''s land, classified as dry situate in Varakalpattu village in Cuddalore, for the purpose of house

sites to Adi Dravidas. The Government published the said Notification in the Government Gazette dated 2.11.1983 and used public notice of the

substance of the said Notification to be given at the convenient places in the locality. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer, after due notice to

the parties held enquiry as contemplated under S.5-A of the Act on 9.12.1983. Both the petitioners raised objections in regard to the proposed

acquisition proceedings and also participated in the enquiry held by the Land Acquisition Officer on 9.12.1983. On receipt of the Report of the

Enquiry proceedings and the record of the proceedings, the Government, after having satisfied itself about the suitability of the lands and also after

considering the representation made by the petitioner, issued a Declaration under S. 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 1111, Social Welfare

Department, dated 12.3.1984 and also published the same in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14.3.1984. Thereafter, the Land

Acquisition Officer caused a notice as contemplated under S. 9 (3) (a) and S. 10 of the Act to be served on the petitioners on 22.3.1984 and held

the Award Enquiry on 29.3.1984 and passed the Award on 29.3.1984 itself. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the above writ

petitions to quash the aforesaid acquisition proceedings. The principal contention put forward by Mr. B. Ramamoorthy, Learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. 3775 of 1984, is that the Government originally initiated acquisition proceedings in which the lands

belonging to the petitioner in W.P. 3775 of 1984 were not included. However, the said land acquisition proceedings were challenged by the

owners of the lands under acquisition then and ultimately this Court, by order dated 3.10.1980, in W.P. Nos. 1138 1176 and 1271 of 1978

quashed the acquisition proceedings from the stage of 4(1) Notification. However, this Court observed that it would be open to the respondent to

proceed de nova from the stage of 4(1) Notification. Thereafter, the Government initiated proceedings for the very same purpose and issued a

Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 2473, Social Welfare Department, dated 3.10.1983, in the instant proceedings some of the

lands belonging to the petitioner which were not under earlier acquisition were included by the Government. Mr. B. Ramamoorthy strenuously

contended that it is as a result of the influence exercised by the owners of the lands, certain portions of lands under original acquisition were

excluded, but the petitioner is helpless, with the result, his lands are included in the instant acquisition. Equally, Learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner in W.P. No. 4110 of 1984 also contended that the impugned acquisition proceedings is as a result of the mala fide exercise of power on

the part of the respondents, even though the allegations with respect to the mala fide have been refuted by the respondent. However, the

respondents considered representations of the petitioner, and ultimately, on consideration of the record of the proceedings including that of the

petitioners, issued a declaration under S. 6 of the Act, as aforesaid. The Government Advocate also has brought to the notice of this Court the

averments contained in the counter-affidavit, refuting the allegations with reference to the consideration of the representations made by the writ

petitioners. The principal contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases is only the mala fide exercise of the power. A mere

allegation in respect of male fide exercise of the power may not be sufficient, and it cannot be inferred as a result of dropping of certain lands and

inclusion of other lands. However, it is a subjective satisfaction of the Government to satisfy itself about the suitability of the lands acquired. It

cannot be said that it is as a result of mala fide exercise of power without there being any supporting material in this behalf. Consequently, there is

no warrant to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.

However, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the fact that the proceedings are pending before court, the petitioners

may be permitted to see reference under S.18 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make such a request within a period of 30

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, and in case the Land Acquisition Officer

receives such representation within a period specified hereinabove, he is permitted to make a reference to the Civil Court under the Act. With

these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.