TENNITHIA ANNA MUDITHIRUTHIVORE SANGAM Vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE NAMAKKAL, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an association and its members are said to belong to the backward class and the most backward class, as notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The first respondent is said to have initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire certain lands belonging to the sixth respondent for a specific purpose of allotting house sites to the members of the petitioner association. Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Lana Acquisition Act was issued on 28-11-1983 in G.O.Ms. No. 2804/83 in respect of an extent of 7.22 acres and it seems that the owner of the land had challenged the acquisition in W.P. No 3898 of 1984. This Court had quashed the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act and directed the authority to conduct a fresh enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act was held as per the directions of this Court. It is stated that by proceedings dated 26-5-1992, the Land Acquisition Officer overruled the objections of the owners and suggested the acquisition of the entire extent of 7.22 acres. However, the Government, as the final authority, under Sec. 6 of the Act, decided to acquire only a lesser extent and withdrew from acquisition an extent of 3.22 acres. This is evident from the impugned notification issued in the .Gazette dated 3-7-1992. The writ petition by the Sangam is to quash the said notification dated 4-7-1992 and direct the respondents to allot the extent of 3.22 acres sought to be withdrawn from the acquisition, also, to the members of the petitioner Sangam.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner says that inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Officer was recommended the acquisition of the entire extent of 7.22 acres, the Government was not justified in dropping an extent of 3.22 acres from the acquisition proceedings. He also says that the compensation for the entire extent of 7.22. acres has been deposited with the Government. On these grounds, I do not think that the petitioner has a right to compel the Government to acquire the balance extent of 3.22 acres also. It is well known that in an acquisition proceedings, it is the Government which is the final authority, and the declaration made by the Government under Sec. 6 of the Act is final and conclusive. A beneficiary cannot say that the very same extent of 3.22 acres should be acquired and given to them. If at all, the beneficiary can ask the Government to provide some house site for them and it may be open to the Government to acquire some other land to provide house sites to the members of the Sangam. That will not give a right to the petitioner to insist on the very same extent of 3.22 acres. For ought one knows, the owner of the land might have concerned the Government that he is entitled to retain 3.22 acres. So far as the compensation is concerned it is always open to the parties to have the same adjusted at the time of passing of the Award. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.