K GAJENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that his father Late Thiru A. Kumarasamy Udayar owned agricultural land comprised in Survey Nos. 214/2, 214/3 and 214/4 in Anaiyampatti Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District, measuring 0.72.5 hectares. Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978.

(2.) From the pleadings and material on record, it could be deduced that notice has been issued in Form I, under Rule 3(i) of the Rules framed thereunder to the petitioners. Thereafter, a Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978 has been published in Salem District Gazette Extraordinary on 25.03.1999, acquiring lands of the petitioners and others. Subsequently, notice in Form III, as per Rule 5(i) of the rules framed thereunder, has been issued to the land owner and others, for payment of compensation amount. Proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 2307/97(A) dated 25.10.2001 of the Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Attur addressed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur, shows that the father of the petitioner Late A. Kumaraswamy Udayar, and owner of the land had already filed Writ petition No.17195 of 1999, challenging the acquisition proceedings and after withdrawing the same, submitted a letter dated 28.09.2001 for payment of compensation. The proceedings dated 25.10.2001 stated supra, further reveals that a sum of Rs.1,37,414/- determined as compensation, due and payable to Late A. Kumarasamy Udayar, had been deposited in Sub Court, Attur. After withdrawing, W.P. No.17195/1999, 14 years later, petitioner, son of Late Mr. A. Kumarasamy Udayar, has filed the present writ petition to quash the Notification No.26 dated 25.03.1999 of the District Collector, Salem, published in Salem District Gazette on the basis of a decision rendered in W.P. No. 17196/1999 dated 10.12.2001. The only contention raised in this writ petition is that the decision rendered in the above said writ petition applies to the facts of this case.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.