SUNDARAVALLI AMMAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Division Bench in its Order of Reference dated 19.09.2007 has passed the following Order:

(2.) THE issue relates to the question whether the decision of the Full Bench reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 706 [R. PARI vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADI DRAVIDAR WALFARE, PASUMPON MUTHURAMALINGA THEVAR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER] conflicts with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 [STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS vs. ANANTHI AMMAL AND OTHERS] and AIR 1968 SC 432 [ABDUL HUSSAIN vs. STATE OF GUJARAJ] as well as the decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 497 [KALUMIYAKARIMMIYA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS]. In the opinion of the Division Bench, neither Sec.5(A) nor any other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 contemplates, second opportunity to be given to the land owners. THE Division Bench also held that in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 upholding the validity of the said Act except for Section 11(1) of that Act, insofar as it provided for payment of compensation in instalments, the full bench decision runs counter to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the constitution of a larger bench is necessitated to decide the issue. Though, no specific question was referred for the consideration of a Larger Bench from the order of reference of the Division Bench dated 19.9.2007, we discern that the ratio laid down by the full bench decision reported in 2007 (2) M.L.J. 706 requires reconsideration.

(3.) WHEN we peruse the decision of the full bench we find that the full bench made a careful analysis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 (Ananthi Ammal Case) and was also fully conscious of the ratio desidendi of the said decision while answering the reference made before it. The full bench did not agree with the conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1998(1) CTC 281 [THIRUMATHI PUSHPA BAI BAINSINGH vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI], in having held that a further personal enquiry/hearing before the collector was contemplated and that such a conclusion would result in duplication of enquiry i.e., one by the authorized officer and another by the District Collector which was not envisaged under the Act.