M NAGU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order issued by the first respondent under section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31/78) (in short, "the Act") in respect of the following properties said to have belonged to various petitioners, situate at Naanamadai village, Aakavayal, Elayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, as published in the District Gazette dated 29.6.1998: TABLE

(2.) THE petitioners are said to be the owners of various extent of properties in survey numbers stated above and are all small farmers. According to the petitioners, the Government has already acquired lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of Naanamadai village and already 40 houses have been constructed and even in respect of those lands acquired, there are excess vacant lands available. According to the petitioners, some of the beneficiaries have sold away the lands allotted to them and therefore, the present acquisition is not actually for the need of Harijans. THE first respondent, District Collector has issued notification under section 4(1) of the Act 31/78 without notice issued under section 4(2) of the said Act. THE petitioners came to know about the acquisition proceedings only in November, 1998 as Form No.III was issued on 16.11.1998 and served on them. According to the petitioners, since no notice under section 4(2) was issued to the owners excepting the second petitioner K.Malairaj, whose signature was said to have been obtained by the second respondent recently while he had gone to enquire about the acquisition proceedings after receiving notice in Form No.III. According to the petitioners, no enquiry was conducted as required under law. THE petitioners were called upon for enquiry for determination of compensation which was proposed to be held on 3.12.1998, but there was no enquiry on that date and therefore, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings on various grounds including that as per section 4(1) of the Act 31/78, the District Collector must be satisfied about the requirements, whereas in the said order, it is stated that the Government was satisfied, no notice was issued under section 4(2) of the Act to any of the petitioners, who are the owners excepting the second petitioner Malairaj. According to the petitioners, the notification itself contains the name of a dead person in respect of Survey No.25/12A, viz., Muthiah who died two years ago and no enquiry has been conducted before issuing notification under section 4(1) of the Act and the petitioners are small farmers and the lands are the only source of their livelihood.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Advocate Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, appearing for the respondents would submit that in respect of Section 4(2) notice, the same has been received by the second petitioner, Malairaj and other petitioners have refused to receive the same and therefore, affixture has been made in respect of other petitioners. As far as the owner of survey No.25/13 is concerned, as per the records, it stands in the name of Muthiah and there is no change of name effected in the records after his death including the legal heirs. The said Malairaj having received the notice has not appeared for the enquiry and ultimately, after enquiry award was passed in December, 1998, viz., 3.12.1998 while the present writ petition came to be filed on 9.12.1998. He has also produced the entire file regarding the acquisition.