FATHIMA BEEVI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant and he made a challenge to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978] under notification dated 24.12.2001, published in the Government Gazette dated 09.01.2002 as well as the award dated 18.03.2002, by filing W.P. Nos. 13269 and 13268 of 2002 respectively and both the writ petitions, after contest, came to be dismissed, vide common order dated 17.12.2008 and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has filed these Writ Appeals.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of these Writ Appeals, briefly narrated, are as follows: 2. 1. Lands ad measuring to an extent of 0.10.0 hectares in R.S.No. 189/1B of Vilavancode Village in Vilavancode Taluk of Kanniyakumari Distrcit was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Central Act 1 of 1894] and it was challenged and the proceedings were quashed with liberty to proceed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 and the appellant/writ petitioner, after purchasing the lands comprised in R.S.No. 1891/had subdivided the same into house plots and also put up a small house in a portion ad-measuring 25 cents of land. 2. 2. The respondents thought fit to acquire lands for the purpose of putting up hostel for Adi Dravidar students and therefore, possession was taken to acquire the said lands under the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 and by following due procedure, a sum of Rs. 43,131/- has been awarded and it has been deposited on the file of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai and possession of the lands, according to the respondents, was also taken on 03.04.2002. 2. 3. The petitioner, made a challenge to the said proceedings by filing W.P. Nos. 13268 and 13269 of 2002 contending among other things that the petitioner had already parted 10 cents of land to the Harijans, who are landless and the third respondent had mechanically passed orders dated 09.11.2001 and the mandate case upon the respondents under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 have also been complied with. The respondents had filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and took a stand that only after following the due process of law in letter and spirit, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and possession was also taken and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner is wholly unsustainable. 2. 4. The learned Judge, after taking note of the materials placed, found that the objections raised by the petitioner has been considered in proper perspective and the prescribed authority, namely the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) and Land Acquisition Officer, has rightly reached the conclusion to acquire the lands and therefore, it cannot be faulted with and citing the said reasons, had dismissed the writ petitions and hence, these Writ Appeals.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that under Section 4(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978, the District Collector has to consider the report submitted by the authorised officer containing his recommendations and pass orders as he may deem fit and proper and in the case on hand, the second respondent/District Collector has failed to perform the duty/mandate cast upon him and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and taking into consideration passage of time, prays for quashment of the proceedings without granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions: