SUYAMPRAKASAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THANJAVUR DISTRICT THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Rc. No. 594/98/m2 dated 9. 1. 1998 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 0. 66. 5 hectares comprised in S. No. 59 A/1, situated in Thirumalaisamudhiram Village in Thanjavur Taluk, which has been under his personal cultivation for the past 30 years. The said land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes as per Act 31 of 1978. The petitioner gave representation to the second respondent on 28. 10. 1997 objecting the proposal of the acquisition. The first respondent without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act has passed the impugned order. The petitioner was neither heard nor an opportunity was given to him to make his submissions, after the second respondent submitted his report. Without following the principles of natural justice, which are mandatory the first respondent has passed the impugned order. The petitioner's land is an agricultural land. There are other Government poramboke lands available to the villagers. A further legal contention has been raised that the person who has proceeded with the enquiry is not authorised to conduct the enquiry under the statutory provisions. The power vested with the the District Collector cannot be delegated to the District Revenue Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 4 of the Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Annavu Chettiar Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram (2004 -1 -L. W. 271 ).

(3.) HOWEVER, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that after issuance of Section 4 (1) notification, the land has been acquired as early as 1998. The award has been passed on 9. 3. 1998. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition and it was admitted only on 11. 9. 2001. The Supreme Court in the decision in Municipal Council Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Hyderbeig (AIR 2000 SC 671) has held that after the award was passed no writ petition could be filed or maintained challenging the acquisition proceedings. This has been consistently followed and one of the recent cases is C. Padma Vs. Deputy Secretary To Government (1997 (2) SCC 627), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-