LOGANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 04.02.2005 made in W.P.No.3879 of 1997, in and by which, the learned single Judge upheld the acquisition proceedings initiated under Act 31 of 1978 and dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, after taking us though various averments in the affidavit, reply affidavit and rejoinder etc., as well as the stand taken by the third respondent in the counter affidavit, has contended that in view of the valid objections raised, the second respondent ought to have considered the same and dropped the acquisition proceedings. He further contended that inasmuch as notice calling for objections was issued by the Tahsildar and after receiving the objections from the petitioner, he submitted report to the Collector and the petitioner is entitled to the copy of the said report. He finally submitted that the stand taken by the respondents that there is no obligation on the part of the second respondent to pass an order is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.