S. Palanisamy, S. Rajagopal and S. Prakasam vs The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore and The Special Tahsildar Adi-Dravidar Welfare Pollachi Coimbatore District

Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar

The writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands For Harijan Welfare Schemes Act,

1978.

The land owners have raised the following legal plea:

(i). The first respondent Collector issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act without following the provisions of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The

Collector has mechanically accepted the recommendation of the second respondent and issued the notification.

(ii) The first respondent Collector ought to have independently considered the petitioners'' objection and give valid reasons for rejecting the

objections. The Collector should pass an order in terms of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act independently and should not mechanically accept the

proposal of the second respondent as is done in the present case. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

(iii) The first respondent issued the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act mechanically without applying his mind over the real objection raised by the

petitioners. The first respondent ought to have considered the objection raised by the petitioners before issuing the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act.

Hence, the impugned notification is arbitrary and without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside.

According to the petitioners, the District Collector, the first respondent has not applied his mind by considering the relevant materials before

passing an order as required u/s 4 (3)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows:

Power to acquire land (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire

any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of

this section.

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call

upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to

show cause why it should not be acquired.

(3) (a) The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2) pass such

orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown;

(b) Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), the

officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the

District Collector. After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit.

On the above said plea, the impugned notification is challenged.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent Special Tahsildar and the relevant portion at paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit

which is relevant is set out hereunder:

... Considering the dire need and necessity of the land for the provision of burial ground to Adi Dravidar people of Sangampalayam village, the

objections raised by the landowners were recommended to the Collector, to be over ruled and necessary proposals for acquisition u/s 4(1) of the

Act was recommended with a detailed report submitted to the Collector, Coimbatore in Ref.940/2001/A dated 11.1.2002 and which was

approved by the Collector on 14.3.02 and published in the Coimbatore District Gazaette on 16.3.02 in extra ordinary issue No.5. Necessary pre-

valuation proposals were approved by the Collector, Coimbatore on 27.3.2002 and the award enquiry was fixed to 28.3.2002.

The counter affidavit makes it clear that the report of the authorised officer has been mechanically approved.

While admitting the writ petition on 28.6.2002, interim stay of dispossession alone has been ordered by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J (as he then

was) and the interim order has been made absolute by P. Sathasivam, J. (as he then was) on 5.9.2003. The matter was heard on 21.10.2003,

28.10.2003, 7.11.2003, 17.12.2008 and 22.12.2008 and on all those occasions, this court called upon the respondents to produce the records

so as to verify whether an order has been passed by the District Collector, the first respondent herein in terms of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. In

spite of sufficient opportunity given to the respondents, the records have not been produced. Therefore, the legal plea taken by the petitioners that

the first respondent has not passed an order independently in terms of Section 4(3)(b) stands unrebutted and confirmed by the statement made in

paragraph 4 of the counter which has been extracted above. It states that the proposal with recommendation to over rule the objections that was

forwarded by the authorised officer to the Collector has been approved. It is therefore apparent that no order has been passed independently by

the District Collector as required by Section 4 of the Act 31 of 1978. This vitiates the acquisition proceedings. In view of clear violation of Section

4(3)(b) of the Act, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside in so far as the petitioners'' land is concerned. The

writ petition is allowed. No costs.