STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. S C NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order dated 17.04.2004 made in writ petition No.14259 of 1996 whereby the land acquisition proceedings under section 4(1) of the Tamilnadu Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme act, 1978 published in the Government Gazette on 13.03.1996 was quashed, is canvassed in this appeal.

(2.) THE appellants herein initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act 13 of 1978), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" to acquire 0.01.0 hectare comprised in S.F. No.226/2, Marchiniakenpalayam village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, to provide house sites to the Adidravidas of T.Chinnappampalayam. On 08.02.1996 the second appellant sent notice to one Senapathi Gounder, the owner of the land as per village record under section 4(2) of the Act in Form-1 under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979. THE said notice directed the said Senapathi Gounder to lodge his statements of objections within 15 days after the service of notice by fixing the date of enquiry to 28.02.1996. On 01.03.1996 the said Senapathy Gounder sent a petition to the second appellant to fix the fresh date of hearing as he was indisposed of . THE said petition was received by the second appellant on 04.03.1996. However, the second appellant concluded the enquiry on the date fixed, i.e., on 28.02.1996 after recording the statement of Village Administrative Officer, who stated that there was no objection from any one, in the absence of the noticee Senapathi Gounder and sent the proposal under Section 4(1) to the District Collector on 29.02.1996 and the same was published in the gazette on 13.03.1996.

(3.) THE said order is now put in issue by the appellants, inter alia, contending that the registered owner Senapathi Gounder was issued with notice under Section 4(2) and he failed to file any objection statement to the proceeding within the time granted. His request for extension of time was rejected as it was received after expiry of time granted to file such objections that is conclusion of enquiry under Section 4(2). THE learned Government Pleader has raised yet another contention that the first respondent participated in the Rule 5 enquiry for determination of compensation. Hence, at this point of time he cannot be allowed to contend that he was not served with the 4(2) notice.