N RAMU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PERAMBULUR THIRVALLUVUR DT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 18.2.1997 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and to issue a Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 & 2 to acquire the lands of the petitioners.

(2.) In the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, questioning the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Act 31 of 1978, the petitioners have alleged ulterior motives for the proceedings. They have positively stated in the affidavit that the lands are very fertile lands. The third respondent/Tahsildar was attracted by the same and he very much wanted to purchase the same and tried to negotiate with the petitioner. But the petitioner refused to sell the lands. Immediately the third respondent by using his official position had initiated steps for acquiring the lands of the petitioner as if they were required for the purpose of putting up houses for the harijans. The petitioners further state that the Village, Nakkankudi Kadu has its own harijan colony and there are sufficient vacant lands on the banks of the pond on the southern side, which is Punjai land. The petitioners also claim to belong to weaker section of the society and they belong to Most Backward Community and they are themselves poor families. The entire action of the respondents was only because the petitioner had refused to sell the lands to the third respondent. The action of the third respondent was therefore vindictive. The petitioners further state that the respondents issued a notice dated 18.2.1997, which was served on the petitioner only on 13.3.1997 fixing the date of hearing as 14.3.1997. The service of notice deliberately delayed even without providing sufficient time. In order to foreclose the case of the petitioners, the notice was given at the last minute. The petitioners also refer to various Government orders, in which the acquisition of wet lands, the authorities are prohibited to undertake and also requiring approval by a Committee. The petitioners further state that the harijans in the area have at no time made any demand for allocation of the house sites.

(3.) Having regard to the aforesaid specific allegations against the third respondent, who was the then Tahsildar, the said individual has also been impleaded as the third respondent. But, no counter has been filed by the third respondent refuting the said allegations. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, he has not chosen to file a separate affidavit denying the allegations of mala fides.