O U SINDHA MADHAR Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADHI DRAVIDA WELFARE LAND ACQUISITION TENKASI NELLAI KATTABOMMAN DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings on several grounds. According to him, the lands in question were purchased by him and his sister, Aminal Bibi in 1963 and he has been in exclusive possession ever since. According to him, there are enough Government lands in and around Kadayanallur, which could be allotted to the Adi Dravidas. No enquiry was conducted and no attempt was made to serve notice on the owner nor were the rules relevant to service of notice complied with.

(2.) IN this case, the proceedings of the Tahsildar indicate that notice was served only to one Mohd.Yusuf, S/o.Shahul Hameed and therefore, the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act also refers only to Mohd.Yusuff, S/o.Shahul Hameed as the owner of the land sought to be acquired. The recommendations of the Special Tahsildar on 16.9.1995 also indicate that the Village Administrative Officer had informed that the patta was in Mohd.Yusuff's name and that he alone is in enjoyment of the lands. For the first time, in the Form III notice issued under Rule 5(i), the petitioner's name is found. It is apparent even from the counter that the petitioner has not been shown as the person interested at the earlier stage when he has the right to be heard before the Collector is satisfied that the lands, in respect of which the notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act was issued, must be acquired.

(3.) IN INcome Tax Officer v. Biju Patnaik (1991)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 161, the Supreme Court held, in a case relating to assessment under Sec.147-A of the INcome Tax Act that the satisfaction of the authority making the order cannot be challenged on the ground of non-application of mind even though the order does not ex facie disclose the satisfaction if the records disclose the same. It was observed as follows: