RETHINABOOPATHY AMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein, as writ petitioner, unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings, resulting in her preferring this appeal.

(2.) TO put the facts in a nut shell, the appellant is the owner of lands in S.No.372/1, classified as 'patta manavari' in the revenue records, measuring 1.07.5 hectare. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued to her on 21.7.1999 and an enquiry was conducted on 9.8.1999, wherein the land owner participated and submitted her objections and after rejecting such objections, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 30.9.1999, seeking the lands to be acquired for providing house sites to 75 eligible houseless Adi Dravidar families. Award enquiry notice under section 5(1) of the Act was issued on 18.11.1999 in Form 3 for assessment of compensation payable in respect of the lands sought to be acquired.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner/appellant is that the respondents 1 and 2 without proper application of mind and on erroneous view, have over-ruled her objections and directed passing of final declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act; that the notice under Section 4(1) does not specify the purpose of acquisition, which is sufficient to quash the entire acquisition proceedings; that there are other alternative lands in the nearby area to the existing harijan colony; that she has stated to the respondents 1 and 2 that the poromboke lands of the Government are all under illegal occupation and encroachment and the land nearby the existing harijan colony is the most suitable land for the purpose of acquisition; that the petitioner also represented before the 2nd respondent, at the time of enquiry, that in case, if there is any difficulty in acquiring the lands of the Government or any other alternative lands, which is best and suitable for the purpose, the petitioner/appellant is always ready and willing to secure similar extent of land nearby the existing colony or give away their own lands in S.No.53, Nellithoppu village or lands in S.F.No.98 in Kamalakudi village. But, according to the petitioner/appellant, her contentions were not at all considered by the official respondents. THE petitioner/appellant would also contend that the first respondent before over-ruling her objections, ought to have marked a copy of the report and ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and failure to do so, violates the principles of natural justice.