S C NATARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the official respondents to acquire an extent of 1.01.0 Hectare, comprised in S.F. No.226/2, Marchinaickenpalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, to provide house sites to the Adidravidas of T.Chinnappampalayam. On 08.02.1996, the 2nd respondent herein sent a notice to one Senapathi Gounder, under Section 4(2) of the Act in Form-I (under Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979). The notice directed the said Senapathi Gounder to lodge his statement of objections within 15 days after the service of notice and that the same would be enquired into on 28.2.1996. The said Senapathi Gounder received the notice and the 15 days time would expire by 12.3.1996. On 01.03.1996 Senapathi Gounder sent a petition to the 2nd respondent to fix a fresh date of hearing, which was received on 04.03.1996. However, on 4.3.1996, notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the Collector of Coimbatore in Form II under Rule 3 (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979, and the same was published in the gazette on 13.3.1996. The above facts are admitted by both the parties.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that way back in the year 1994, he filed a suit against Senapathi Gounder and his minor son Vignesh for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to an extent of land measuring 7.29 acres in S. No.226, Marchinaickenpalayam (which included the property in question) and that ultimately, the suit was decreed on 21.6.1996 and in those circumstances, the authorities should have issued notice to him as well.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that they have to go only by the entries in the Revenue Records and that at the relevant time the records showed only Senapathi Gounder as absolute owner of the property and rightly, he was given notice. The fact that the suit was instituted in the year 1994, and decreed subsequently would not alter the position.