G RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NORTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a writ of certiorari, to quash the acquisition proceedings of the first respondent in his Notification dated 9.2.1996 published in the North Arcot Ambedkar District Gazettee for acquiring the lands bearing S.No.133 for an extent of 1.16 acres situated in Renugapuram Hamlet of 29 Rangasamudram Village and for the lands bearing S.No.134 for an extent of 1.00 acres situated in Jangalapalli Hamlet of No.29, Rangasamudram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, North Arcot District issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the lands in question belonged to the father of the 1st petitioner. The first petitioner and his sister alone are entitled to get the lands on partition made among them. Apart from these lands no other land was in their occupation. They are all small farmers solely dependent on the income from these lands. There are more then 100 coconut trees and they are cultivating paddy and other wet crops. The said land was sought to be acquired under the impugned notification for allegedly providing for the house sites of Adi Dravidars. On an earlier occasion, when the proceeding were initiated by the Central Government, the first petitioner has filed W.P.No.9767 of 1995 which was allowed by this Court on 31.10.1995. Subsequently, under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 the proceedings were again initiated on 27.9.1995, the first petitioner was called upon to attend for an enquiry on 24.10.1995 at 3.00. p.m. Accordingly the first petitioner appeared on behalf of his father who was aged about 78 years and submitted their objections. He also requested the second respondent to give an opportunity to make their objections before the first respondent to drop the further proceedings. Till date no such opportunity has been given. The objections of the petitioners were not considered in proper perspective and the respondents have simply over -ruled their objections without any substance. They did not receive any report on the objections raised by the petitioners. In the affidavit, the first petitioner has also given further details as regards other poramboke lands available in the vicinity.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners had raised the following points: -