T. SHANKARAMOORTHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANCHEEPURAM & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands comprised in S. Nos. 119/1A & 119/1B at Thirumangalam Kandigai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The First Respondent initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 to acquire these lands for a public purpose for the benefit of the people belonging to the Adi Dravida Community. The said Notification was issued by the District Collector on 19.3.1999. However, the same was not further pursued by the District Collector and the same was dropped on 8.1.2002 as the Notice lapsed by operation of limitation. Thereafter, the District Collector initiated fresh proceedings on 3.1.2003. The Petitioner submitted his objections for the same. But without holding any enquiry, the District Collector issued a final declaration under Section 4(1) of the Act and published the same in the District Gazette on 8.3.2003 vide RC.12221/99J1 dated 11.2.2003. Challenging the said order issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this Writ Petition, on account of an interim Order passed by this Court, possession has not been taken from the Petitioner so far by the Respondents and thus, the Petitioner has been all along enjoying the property.

(3.) IN this Writ Petition, it is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that having taken a decision to drop the Acquisition proceedings dated 19.3.1999, on 8.1.2002, the fresh proceeding for Land Acquisition issued on 3.1.2003 is mala fide and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that there was no enquiry held properly as required under Section 4(3) of the Act, by the Second Respondent above all the Report of the Second Respondent allegedly submitted to the First Respondent was also not furnished to the Petitioner by calling upon him to submit his remarks regarding the same. It is finally contended that the entire proceeding is vitiated as the land is not at all required for the purpose of acquisition. For these reasons, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside.