A MUTHUKUMARASWAMY CHETTIAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Notification No.4.A, dated 13.1.1998 issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978 and quash the said Notification in so far as it concerns the petitioner.

(2.) THE lands comprised in S.No.140/2-B to an extent of 0.21.0 hectares, S.No.140/3-A to an extent of 0.36.0 hectares and S.No.146/3 to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares, to a total extent of 0.77.0 hectares belong to the petitioner. Originally, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Central Act, by the Government Order, dated 28.10.1994, which was Gazetted on 7.12.1994. THEreafter, the publication in two newspapers in "Pirpagal" and "Makkal Kural" was effected on 9.12.1994 and 6.12.1994 respectively and local publication of Section 4(1) Notification was effected on 13.1.1995. Notice of enquiry under Section 5-A was issued to the petitioner and the enquiry was proceeded on 2.3.1995. While such enquiry was pending, by communication dated 24.8.1985 in Ref.No.K.Dis.I-3-36739/95, the Land Commissioner of the Government of Tamil Nadu has advised the first respondent-Collector of Villupuram District to proceed with further land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu State Act 31 of 1978 as enabled under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of Mrs. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, under Section 2(j), the term "prescribed authority" is defined as any authority or officer authorized by the Government by Notification. According to the learned Addl.G.P., the Government, by Notification, has authorized the District Revenue Officer and therefore, it cannot be said that the issuance of Section 4(1) Notification or consideration of the report by the Special Tahsildar for the purpose of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification, by the District Revenue Officer, is improper. It is also her contention that even under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, there is a power on the part of the Tamil Nadu Government to delegate the functions with some conditions and in that Section, the Explanation makes it clear that for the purpose of that Section, the term "District Collector" also includes District Revenue Officer. Therefore, according to her, the District Collector's functions as per the Act, have been impliedly delegated to the District Revenue Officer and therefore, the signing of Section 4(1) Notification by the District Revenue Officer is not without jurisdiction. She has also produced the files relating to the land acquisition proceedings connected with the issue involved in this case.