LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-738

V KRISHNASAMY GOUNDER AND ANOTHER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE AND PRESIDENT, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT

Decided On January 28, 2010
V KRISHNASAMY GOUNDER AND ANOTHER Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE AND PRESIDENT, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records from the file of the second respondent/Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, Tirupur in regard to the issuance of the impugned notice of the second respondent dated 06.11.2000 and to quash the same. The petitioners are the owners of lands in S. No. 302/2a and S. No. 762/1, Veerapandi Village, Tirupur Taluk, Coimbatore District (now Tiruppur District) to an extent of 0.10 acres and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property for several years.

(2.) The second respondent issued a notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Act in Na.Ka. No. 1278/98/a dated 23.05.2000 calling for objections for acquisition of a part of the lands in S. No. 302/2a and S. No. 762/1 to make pathway to the lands in S. No. 288 which was already acquired by the second respondent and pattas were issued to Harijans to construct houses. The petitioners raised their written objections for acquisition in the enquiry conducted on 13.06.2000. In the objections, they mentioned that since already the Government laid a pucca Tar road to the Harijans colony by spending lakhs of rupees, there was no need to acquire their lands and moreover the religious ceremony were being celebrated in the Vinayagar Koil situated adjacent to their lands will be disturbed due to the acquisition of the lands.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the second respondent while issuing the impugned notice in Form III, Rule 5(i) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules had not followed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act and that the entire acquisition proceedings of the respondents were arbitrary and illegal and therefore liable to be quashed.