AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard both sides and perused the records filed in these cases.
The petitioners, aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands in Survey Nos. 278/2 and 277/2C situated at Palankarai Village, Avinashi Taluk,
Coimbatore 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''), have filed these two writ petitions. When for the very same lands, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Central Act, the
husband of the first petitioner filed W.P.Nos.8521 and 8522 of 1994. The proceedings were quashed by an order dated 27.11.1995. However,
liberty was given to proceed under the T.N. Act 31 of 1978.
The writ petitions were admitted by this Court on 22.5.1996. Interim order against dispossession of the lands from the petitioners was also
granted. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent justifying the acquisition of the lands for the purpose of providing house
sites to the beneficiaries, who admittedly belong to the Adidravidar Community of that village and surrounding areas.
The second respondent being the prescribed authority initiated proposals for the acquisition of lands for the Harijan Welfare Scheme and the
notice u/s 4(2) was issued and served on the owner of the lands. The land owner received the notice. An enquiry was conducted on 12.2.1996.
The land owner participated in the enquiry. The land owner gave her objection on 12.2.1996 to the officer concerned.
The objection given by the owner was considered by the authority concerned. He sent his proposal to the District Collector. The District
Collector rejected the objections given by the land owner. Thereafter, a notification u/s 4(1) was published in the District Government Gazette on
22.3.1996. Immediately thereafter, the land owners moved this Court and had obtained an interim order.
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 land was not usable for the schemes for which it was acquired;
(c) The proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner did not take into account the availability of other lands in the village or the lands nearby;
(d) The land that is sought to be acquired is the only land by which the petitioners are eking out their livelihood and its present cost will be very
high;
(e) The land in question is having two wells with motor pumpset. Further there are high tension wires passing over the lands and hence no houses
can be built underneath those wires; and
(f) The District Collector did not give the copy of the Gazette Notification.
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, the connected matters came to be grouped together and were posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the
Honourable Chief Justice.
In the counter affidavit dated 29.12.1997 filed by the second respondent, it was stated that there were no suitable lands available in that area.
The houseless persons belonging to the Adidravidar community are living within two kms. of the proposed acquisition. The wells have been
omitted from acquisition. Further, when house pattas are issued, the High Tension lines will be relocated. All the procedural formalities have been
taken into account. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
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.
In the light of the above, the writ petitions are misconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.