V KANNIAN Vs. COLLECTOR SALEM DISTRICT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN October 1995, by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Office, Salem, the proposal of the Tahsildar, Attur was approved for acquisition of house sites to the Adi Dravidas in Yethappur village and the Special Tahsildar, Attur was directed to proceed further. The proposal sent by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Attur as against the heading "Reason why the land at the disposal of the Government cannot be utilised", it was stated that no suitable poromboke lands were available for that purpose. On 17.10.1995, notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act was given to one Renulingam and both sons of Prabhulingam to lodge their objections on or before 11 a.m. on 8.11.1995. It is seen from the records that the Village Administrative Officer has made an endorsement that Ramalingam has refused to receive the notice because the properly now belongs to the two petitioners in W.P.Nos.12558 and 12669 of 1996. Thereupon, the notice was affixed on the stone. On 7.12.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar forwarded his recommendation, according to which the Officer indicates that he was personally satisfied "that the notice was served and published in the manner prescribed". Again, there is the endorsement of the Village Administrative Officer that Renulingam has refused to receive the notice.

(2.) THE draft notice under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 in Form II, as per Rule 3(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 is signed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Special Tahsildar and was issued on 8.12.1995.

(3.) SEC.4(1) clearly speaks of satisfaction. Without that, further proceedings cannot go in. In fact, in a case which will be dealt with later, this Court quashed the action of the Government in proceeding with the acquisition though the Collector had indicated that further action should be dropped. So, the Collector's satisfaction is the indispensable factor to justify the acquisition. The record of satisfaction must be there in clear terms. The question is whether the notice ex facie should disclose satisfaction, or it is enough if the records disclose it.