P RAJENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer is for a certiorari to call for the records of the respondents relating to the Gazette Notification of the first respondent in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 12.1.1997 published at page 2 of Salem District Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.3, dated 20.2.1997 and the notice of the second respondent in R.O.C.No.914/96-A, dated 24.3.1997 in Form-III and quash the same insofar as they relate to the petitioner herein on the following allegations: THE petitioner owns 0.09.0 hectare in S.No.284/1-C and 1.14.0 hectare in S.No.284/2-C both the lands being situated in Panamarathupatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. He is a small farmer and he is depending on the yield from the said lands for his livelihood. On 23.3.1997 the second respondent came to the lands made enquiries and only then the petitioner came to know that proceedings had been initiated for acquiring his lands. THE petitioner was asked to meet the second respondent in his office on 25.3.1997. When he went there he was served with a notice in Form No.III in ROC.No.914/96-A, dated 24.3.1997 informing him that the award enquiry would be conducted on the very next day, viz., 26.3.1997 at 11 a.m. Immediately on receipt of award enquiry notice in Form No.III, he submitted his objection dated 25.3.1997 to the second respondent. He was informed by the second respondent that a decision had already been taken to acquire his lands and therefore the second respondent would not be in position to consider the petitioner's objections.

(2.) IT would appear that a Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published by the first respondent in the Salem District Gazette under Notification No.3, dated 20.2.1997. From the notification thus issued it would be seen that the decision was taken to acquire the petitioner's lands in R.O.C.No.89488/96(D8), dated 12.1.1997. The petitioner was not served with any notice on him or any other person on his behalf under Sec.4(2) of the Act and this is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore it would vitiate the entire proceedings. The notification published in the District Gazette is also not in conformity with the provisions of Sec.4(1) of the Act. Even for the award enquiry reasonable time had not been given. The petitioner did not have any time to get legal opinion and submit valid objection. IT is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) IN Sec.45 of Act I of 1984 the procedure to be followed is specifically provided. IN my view, when the State exercises powers of eminent domain basic principles of natural justice have to be followed. The person whose lands are sought to be acquired ought to have proper notice of the proceedings initiated in respect of his lands.