VASANTHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.02.2006 made in writ petition No.17517 of 1996. In the writ petition, the appellant herein sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, the District Collector, Dindigul relating to the notification made in the Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 31.01.1996 in N.Ka.No.H2/105497/95 dated 09.01.1996, with respect to the appellant's land comprised in S.F.No.572/3 (0.81.0 Hectare), Kodalvavi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul Anna District and the consequential notice dated 09.08.1996 issued in Na.Ka.No.2132/95/A in Form-III under Rule 5(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 and quash the same.

(2.) THE facts are: An extent of 0.81 hectares of dry land in survey No.572/3 of Kodalvavi village was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of making provision of house sites to Adi dravidars of Kullampatti and Gurunappanaickenpudu, the hamlet villages of Kodalvavi village. THE acquisition proceedings were initiated in G.O. Ms. (3D) 1079 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare dated 22.12.1994 under the Central Act (1 of 1984) by issuance of 4(1) notice to the land owner, the father of the appellant in whose name the land was registered in the revenue records. Section 5A enquiry notice was also issued to the land owner Madhana Gurusamy posting the enquiry on 23.02.1995. Subsequent proceedings were initiated under the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978. In the meantime, the subject land was settled in favour of the appellant. No notice which is mandatory in nature as contemplated under the Act were given by the appellant. On that basis the appellant filed the writ petition. THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition having found that there was no merit in the contentions of the appellant. In this appeal the correctness of the said judgment is put in issue.

(3.) THOUGH section 5A notice under the Central Act has been duly served on the land owner, he, by a telegram requested time for 30 days. The hearing dates were fixed on 17.05.1995 and 06.06.1995 and 20.06.1995. For all these hearings, notices were sent to the land owner, the father of the appellant through the Village Administrative Officer as well as by RPAD. Notices sought to be served through the Village Administrative Officer have been refused to be received by the land owner, the father of the appellant, and the Village Administrative Officer served notices by affixture and resubmitted the copies of the same by stating that the notices have been served by affixture. Notices sent for the 5A enquiry through RPAD were returned by the postal authorities with endorsements that the addressee has gone to outstation and in spite of repeated visits, the notice under RPAD could not be served as the addressee was not available respectively. The land owner Madhana Gurusamy who sought for 30 days' time for submitting his objections, neither submitted his objections nor attended the enquiry on the adjourned dates.