K SUBBIA GOUNDER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek for a writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 18 of 1995 in G.O. (3D) No.331, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.05.1992 and in Declaration under Section 6 made in G.O. (3D) No. 721, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.10.1993 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of the lands in Survey No. 153 of an extent of 1.12 acres and survey No. 154 to an extent of 1.78 acres, and a total extent of 2.90 acres in Mangalam Village. Originally the lands belonged to the joint family of the petitioners. Though the lands are classified in the Revenue Records as dry lands they are punja lands. THE respondents under the pretext of providing house sites to 50 Adi Dravidars residing at Agrahaputhur and Chinnaputhur initiated proceedings under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act. THE petitioners are given to understand that the said Notification was published in a daily called 'Makkal Kural', Madras Edition dated 11.6.1992 and another daily called 'Pirpagal' Coimbatore Edition on the same day on 11.6.1992. THE petitioners contend that so far as the Makkal Kural is concerned, the Notification was given only in Madras Edition and the other daily 'Pirpagal' has no circulation at all to the knowledge of the petitioners and the said paper has no circulation within Coimbatore District. THErefore, no sanctity can be attached to the said newspapers' publication. THE petitioners coming to know of this acquisition, filed their objections on 14.12.1992. THE notice dated 26.11.1992 under the revised Rule 4 has been served on the petitioners and it is only in furtherance of the said notice, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation. THE petitioners further submit that in view of the specific provisions of Rule 4, objections have to be forwarded to the Acquisitioning Department and only after ascertaining their views on the objections, it should be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter only, fresh enquiry will have to be conducted. But to the surprise of the petitioners, no further enquiry was conducted. It is only when the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.4.1993 was received by the petitioners, it was made known that the objections of the petitioners were over- ruled. THErefore, there was clear violation of statutory provisions of the Act and Rules. It is further stated that there are Government poromboke lands within the vicinity and if only objections have been forwarded to the Requisitioning Department, the objections of the petitioners would have been considered in proper manner. Hence, the above writ petition.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh only in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.