RAJAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHARAMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the respondents under the provisions of Act 31 of 1978, whereby the property of the petitioners mere acquired for the purpose of formation of a pathway to the burial ground for the benefit of Adi Dravidare of Thekkal Naickenpatti Village, Pappiredipatti Taluk in Dharmapuri District.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are an under:THE property in Survey No. 150/10 in THEkkal Naickenpatti Village, having an extent of.70 hectares absolutely belongs the petitioners. When they came to know of the proposal of the respondents to acquire the said property for the purpose of Adi Dravidars of the area, they have submitted a representation to the first respondent on 23.12.1996. However without considering the said representation the second respondent issued a notice under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules 1979. In response to the said notice, the petitioners have submitted their objection. Subsequently the first respondent had published a notification in the-District Gazette on 15.6.1998 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Act, 1979 (hereinafter refer red to as -Act 31 of 1978-). THE said notification is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) IT was only after consideration of the objection filed by the petitioners that the proposal was approved by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the Act and accordingly the same was published in Dharmapuri District Gazette dated 15.6.1998. Subsequently award enquiry under Section 5(2) was conducted on 20.8.1998 and in the said enquiry the daughter in law of the first petitioner took part and presented her objection and on consideration of the objection submitted by the land owners in respect of Survey Nos. 150/13 and 150/16, award was passed by overruling the objection. The second respondent, has also admitted the receipt of representation from the first petitioner on 23.12.1996 requesting the respondents to abstain from acquiring the property in Survey No. 150/10. However the action taken by the respondents for acquiring the property was justified on the ground that the proceedings were already initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The second respondent also contended that the property of the petitioners are fit for the purpose of making a path way to the burial ground in existence and no other lands were available for the said purpose.