MARIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.12730 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.No.3(D)No.233 Adi Dravidar and Trival Welfare dated 16.3.1993 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 17.3.1993, Part II, Section 2 at page 2 in so far as it relates to the petitioner's lands comprised in S.No.147/IA in Bommidi Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and quash the acquisition proceedings and forbear the respondents from acquiring the petitione rs agricultural lands. 2. W.P.No.18494 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the acquisition of the lands in Survey No. 185 (part) of an extent of 8.49.5 hectares in Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District and quash the G.O.No.3-D No.122 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.2.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Page 1, Part II Section 2 (Supplement) dated 18.3.1992. 3. W.P.No.22277 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to section 4(1) Notification in G.O.3-D734 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 12.10.1992 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.(3- D) No.643 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 16.9.1993 and quash the same in so far as they relate to the petitioners land in S.No.29/13 of Nelkkarapatti Village, Salem Taluk. 4. W.P.No.12326 of 1994 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.3 (D) No.41, Backward classes and most Backward Classes Welfare dated 12.5.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.5.1994 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners lands in S.Nos.337/4,337/5A,337/5B and 337/5C in Bommarajapuram Village, H/O Suryanagaram. 5. The petitioners, in the above writ petitions, have chosen to challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the date of issuance of notifications differ, as the point involved for consideration in all the above writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions are dealt with together and the following common order is passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are vitiated as there was no compliance of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, which makes obligatory on the part of the respondents to forward the objections received from the land owners to such Department or company who are requiring the land and the Department or company has duty to answer to the objections. Learned counsel have further submitted that in these cases the objections received from the land owners have hot been forwarded to the requisitioning bodies by the collector more so. when the impugned notifications under section 4(1) of the Act have been issued to the respective petitioners after 11.6.1991 on which date, the amendments to the Land Acquisition Rules have come into force. They have further submitted that as per the Rule 3 (b) of the old Tamil Nadu Acquisition Rules and the explanation thereto there was no obligation on the part of the collector to send notice and call for the remarks of the revenue department if the land was required by the revenue department and the revenue department was deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward classes at the District level. Learned counsel have further submitted that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the old Rules. They have further submitted that in the absence of Explanation to Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules, the authorities have no powe r whatsoever to cloud themselves under the explanation to Rule 3(b) of the old Rules so as to defend that it is not obligatory on their part to forward the objections to the requisitioning body when the Department is the Revenue Department. in the absence of the words "Revenue Department" in Rule 4 (b) of the amended Rules, learned counsel submitted that the department mentioned in Rule 4 (b) includes the Revenue Department and the respondents authorities ought to have forwarded the objections to the Re venue Department which is the requisitioning authority in the cases on hand. In the circumstances. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. TO substantiate their contention that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore and others v. V.K.Kangan , AIR 1975 SC 2100 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the requirement regarding giving of notice to concerned Department is mandatory and failure to give notice is fatal to validity of proceedings under section 5-A(2) and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 7. In the counter, it has been stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the objections filed by the interested persons and the same have been overruled. However it is not stated whether the objections have been forwarded to the requisitioning body even though it is the Revenue Department in compliance of the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the Rules. 8. Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules prior to amendment of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules in 1991. reads thus: if any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date of hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objectors as well as to the department or company requiring the land where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Explanation :- for the purpose of this sub-rule, the Revenue Department shall be deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward Classes at the district level. (G.O.Ms.No.996 Revenue, dated 19.5.1976). 9. Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules amended as per G.O.Ms.No.892 Revenue dated 11.6.1991 reads thus: "if any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form