STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. POWN AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.12.1998, made in Writ Petition No.13216 of 1992, State of Tamil Nadu through its Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Vellore preferred the above writ appeal.

(2.) THE respondents herein are the petitioners before the learned Judge, who filed the said writ petition questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, after finding that there is no specific delegation or authorization by the Government authorizing the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) to discharge the duties of the Collector, quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition. Questioning the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) AS per Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4, a Notification is to be published (i) in the Official gazette; (2) in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language; and (ii) substance of such notification is to be given at convenient places in the said locality. By pointing out the above three modes of publication and also the non-mentioning of Sec.3(c) in the paper publication, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that in the absence of specific authorization to the Special Tahsildar to perform the functions of the District Collector, both under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 and under Clause (c) of Sec.3 of the Act in the Tamil Dailies, he [Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar welfare)] has no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and that the learned single Judge correctly accepted this irregularity and allowed the writ petition. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned senior counsel as well as the conclusion of the learned single Judge for the following reasons.