R ANANTHAKRISHNAN Vs. SECRETARY STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) PRAYER in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award for payment of compensation in pursuance of Section 4(1) notification No.2 dated 4.3.1996 issued under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Act, 1978, and published in the Ramanathapuram District Gazette.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Land Acquisition Act viz. Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 being a special enactment and the power of acquisition of the land under the said Act having been given to the District Collector, as and when notification under section 4(1) is issued by the District Collector and published in the District Gazette the said lands vest with the Government without any encumbrance from the owner and the vesting having been taken place already by virtue of handing over possession by operation of law, the said notification cannot be withdrawn as the Government become the owner of the land. THErefore, neither the first respondent nor the third respondent has got any jurisdiction to drop the acquisition proceedings on the alleged ground that the market value of the land acquired is on the higher side. THE learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that the respondents have got any power to withdraw the notification, the District Collector having been authorised by the Government to acquire the land, he has to independently apply his mind as to whether the acquisition proceedings can be proceeded with or withdrawn and in this case the first respondent decided to drop the acquisition proceeding through letter dated 28.10.1999 and instructed the District Collector to take steps to withdraw the land acquisition proceeding and the same is improper. THE learned counsel further submitted that till date no gazette notification is issued by the third respondent withdrawing the acquisition of the petitioners' land and now over 11 years have passed and substantial prejudice is caused to the petitioners due to the delay and the adjacent lands having been acquired and Harijan colonies are established, petitioners are unable to enter into their lands and therefore their right to hold the property guaranteed under Article 300A is affected. On the above said grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for ordering the writ petition with a direction to arrive at the just compensation for the already acquired land and pay the same.