V PANCHAVARNAM PILLAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of lands in S.Nos.11/4 and 11/9B respectively in Yemaneswaram Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Proposals were submitted for provision of house sites to the houseless 117 Adi Dravidars of Kattuparamakudi Village under the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act"). Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1.2.95. Publication in Tamil dailies was also made on 3.2.95. Notice in Form-3A of the Central Act was served on the land owners. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 22.3.95. In fact objections were raised for acquisition proceedings on the ground that the lands are required for dwelling purpose. The said objections were overruled. At that stage the second respondent realised that in view of the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the "State Act"), acquisition of lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars should be made only under the State Act. Hence, by continuing the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Central Act, Form-II report was submitted to the District Collector who directed the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 in the Ramanathapuram District Gazette dated 1.11.95. An award enquiry was also held. The petitioners participated in the award enquiry and ultimately common Award No.16/95-96 dated 26.3.96 was also passed. Since the land owners refused to receive the compensation amount, the same was kept in revenue deposit. Possession of the land was taken on 1.4.96. After completing the usual formalities, lands were handed over and pattas were also issued to the beneficiaries on 26.6.96. On the above factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions questioning the notification published in the District Gazette under the State Act.

(2.) Mr.V.Rajanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on and after 22.11.94 when the validity of the State Act was upheld by the Apex Court, the respondents ought to have initiated the acquisition proceedings only under the State Act. Admittedly, notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1.2.95. Nevertheless, when the respondents realised their mistake in not initiating the acquisition proceedings under the State Act, ought to have issued Form-I notice under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the State Act before the District Collector directed the publication of notification in the District Gazette on 1.11.95 under Section 4(1) of the State Act. In the absence of notice in Form-I under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

(3.) Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, would submit that of course, Form-I notice was not issued to the petitioners before the notification in the District Gazette was published under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the State Act. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners were already given opportunity under the Central Act to participate in the 5-A enquiry, the same should be deemed to be an opportunity under the State Act. He would further submit that in the circumstances, question of issuing Form-III notice under the State Act cannot be insisted upon.