LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-281

KUPPUSAMY Vs. ADDL DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On April 17, 2007
VELMURUGAN Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent concerning the Sec. 4 (1) Notification issued on 5. 1. 1997 published in the South Arcot Vallalar District Official Gazette on 10. 1. 97 in W1/3983/96 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/78) and quash the same and direct the respondents to forbear from acquiring the lands in R. S. No. 8/7 and 8/9d measuring 0. 28. 5 and 0. 88. 0 hectares respectively belonging to the petitioners.

(2.) THE 1st petitioner is the father of petitioners 2 to 4. The agricultural lands in R. S. No. 8/7 and 8/9d at Kolapakkam village, Cuddalore District belong to them. The lands even though were purchased in the name of the 1st petitioner it was a joint family property which was partitioned and divided by way of oral family arrangement and the different portions of the land are under the enjoyment of the writ petitioners separately. While so, the Special Tahsildar issued a notice dated 17. 9. 1995 in Form I and the same was served on the 1st petitioner. It was stated in the notice that the above said lands were sought to be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, hereinafter called 'the Act 31/1978' and the objections of the persons interested in the lands were called for. The notice dated 17. 9. 95 also informed that an enquiry would be held by the Special Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent on 5. 10. 95. It is the case of the writ petitioners that even though notice was not served on petitioners 2 to 4, all the writ petitioners made a representation to the 2nd respondent informing their objections. They also appeared before second respondent on 5. 10. 95 and made their objections. Thereafter nothing happened and only in March 1999, they came across the issue of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, 1978 in the District Gazette dated 10. 1. 97. Immediately they filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) ONLY the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it was stated that the acquisition proceedings were initiated to accommodate about 140 families of house-less, poor Adi Dravidars. As the lands were purchased in the 1st petitioner's name alone, the other petitioners could not challenge the acquisition proceedings on the basis of the oral partition.