N VASANTHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the notification issued by first respondent herein, the Collector, Dindigul Anna District ( Dindigul mannar Thirumalai District)-Extraordinary, dated 31. 1. 1996 in na. Ka. No. H. 2/105497/95, dated 9. 1. 1996, with respect to the petitioner' s land comprised in S. F. No. 572/3 (0. 81. 0 Hectare), Kodalvavi Village, Dindigul Taluk, dindigul Anna District and the consequential notice dated 9. 8. 1996 issued in na. Ka. No. 2132/95/a in Form-III under Rule 5 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 and quash the same.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, disputing all the facts alleged by the petitioner, as follows: (i) It is stated that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) 1 of 1894. The land of Shri. Madana gurusamy, the pattadar, was sought to be acquired under the aforesaid Central act for the purpose of providing house-sites to Adi Dravidar people and the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued and G. O. (3-D ). 1079, Adi dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 22. 12. 1994 was published in the gazette No. 736 dated 30. 12. 1994. (ii) Notice was issued under Section 5-A to the land owner Shri. Madana Gurusamy, the father of the petitioner, posting the enquiry on 23. 2. 1995, which notice was received by him on 7. 2. 1995, and Shri. Madana gurusamy pleaded for time due to illness. The subsequent hearings were posted on 17. 5. 1995, 6. 6. 1995 and 20. 6. 1995 and for all these hearings, notice was sent to the petitioner's father through Registered Post as well as through the village Administrative Officer (V. A. O), which was refused by the said shri. Madana Gurusamy. Hence, notice was served by affixture. The Registered post was returned with detailed endorsement to the effect that notice could not be served. However, after having requested for 30 days' time through his telegram dated 2 2. 2. 1995, Shri. Madana Gurusamy did not file the objection or appear for the enquiry. (iii) The further submission in the counter affidavit is that pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 ( State of Tamil nadu vs. Ananthi Ammal), upholding the Act 31 of 1978, by virtue of Section 22 of Act 31 of 1978, the proceedings initiated under the Central Act shall continue. Section 22 of the Act 31 of 1978 provides as follows: