N PALANISAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12. 04. 2000 made in W. P. No. 5091 of 1997, in and by which the learned Judge confirmed the acquisition proceedings initiated under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (in short "tamil Nadu Act" ).

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

(3.) IT is seen that Adi Dravidars of Pudu Reddiyur, hamlet of P. N. Patti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District have requested the District Collector to provide house sites. Pursuant to the said request, necessary proposal under Section 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act has been submitted to the Government by the District Collector to acquire 2 acres of patta land in S. No. 877/3 of P. N. Patty Village under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act ). Subsequently, the District Collector has authorised the Special Tahsildar to acquire the same under Tamil Nadu Act. After issuance of notice and after considering the objections of the land owner, the Special Tahsildar submitted a report to the District Collector, Salem. On considering the report of the Special Tahsildar, after satisfying himself, the need for acquisition of land, viz. , for providing house sites to houseless Adi Draviders, the District Collector issued notification in the District Gazette, which was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 5091 of 1997 before this Court. The order of the learned Judge dated 12. 04. 2000 shows that only one contention was raised before him, viz. , that the land being a mango grove, the same cannot be acquired and for that due to availability of alternative poramboke lands, the authorities are not justified in acquiring the land of the petitioner. The learned Judge considering the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, after holding that there is no prohibition in the Act for acquiring the land with mango trees and taking note of the fact that the authority concerned, viz. , District Collector, after satisfying himself regarding the need for acquisition of this land and proceeded, after rejecting the only contention, dismissed the said writ petition. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal.