B TAJUDEEN; B SADICK BASHA; T BADHUSHA; ASLAM; KURSHID; YASMIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE; K MAMANDHAL ADI DRAVIDA NALA SANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed, for quashing Section 4(1) notification dated 24.8.2005 issued under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act (31 of 1978) (hereinafter shortly referred to as Act) in respect of the petitioners' land more fully described in this petition.

(2.) The present writ petition is the second round of litigation against similar Section 4(1) notification under the State Act. The ownership of the land in question is not denied. The land in question originally belongs to Sheik Bakshi and after his death in 1976, the land in question devolved on his legal heirs i.e., 3 brothers, two among whom are the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein along with other brother partitioned the land by registered partition deed dated 2.7.1998. The acquisition proceedings was initiated against the petitioners' land during 1998 and notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette, Villupuram on 20.2.1998. The petitioners, after coming to know about the same in 1999, approached this court by way of WP.17241 of 1999 and sought for similar relief of quashing Section 4(1) notification on the ground that no Form I notice as contemplated under section 4(2) was served on any of the petitioners and section 4(1) notification was issued by the District Revenue Officer without any authority to do so. This Court by order dated 4.12.2001 allowed the earlier writ petition and quashed section 4(1) notification with liberty given to the concerned District Collector to consider the petitioner's objection and the report of the Tahsildar and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In pursuance of the same, fresh section 4(1) notification came to be passed on 24.8.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The acquisition proceedings is, in this writ petition challenged on the following grounds: (i)Form I notice under section 4(2) was not personally served on the petitioners in the manner as contemplated under law; (ii)the copy of the report of authorised officer submitted to the District collector was not served on the petitioners, which resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners in effectively raising their objections against the acquisition proceedings and (iii)the impugned notification was issued without application of mind and in contravention of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act.