C. KANNAPPA PILLAI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (ADW)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated 02.09.2009 made in W.A. Nos. 845 to 847 of 2009. It appears that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the Writ Appeals did not appear before the Division Bench and the appeals were dismissed by taking note of the fact that the Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners after the award was passed in the land acquisitions proceedings initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Review Applications have been filed contending that the Writ Appeals were listed before the Division Bench as item No. 62 on 02.09.2009, but the case reached even before the counsel could anticipate that the matter be taken up and therefore, the counsel could not appear and make an effective representation before the Division Bench. Further, when the Review Petition came up for hearing before this Court, taking note of the fact that the learned counsel did not appear in the Writ Appeals, the petitioners were granted liberty to raise additional grounds. Accordingly, additional grounds were raised.

(2.) THE contentions raised by the petitioners are the notice in Form 1 under Section 4(1) of the Act was given on 04.11.1998 and the petitioners have submitted their objections. An enquiry was conducted 25.11.1998 and the District Collector passed an order overruling the objections of the land owners, by order dated 16.2.1999. However, even prior to the said order, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 25.1.1999. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated, since the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued much prior to the District Collector passing orders overruling the objections of the land owners, which was made only on 16.2.1999 and recording his satisfaction that the lands need to be acquired for the said purpose.

(3.) IN order to satisfy ourselves as to the correctness of the submissions made, we directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the file. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the learned Government Advocate, produced the entire land acquisition file.