VICTOR DEVASAHAYAM Vs. COLLECTOR THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent herein in Lr.No.Rc.J1/20030/2002 dated 24.07.2002 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette No.17 dated 03.08.2002 in so far as the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 13/6 A, 13/6 B, 13/8, 13/9, 13/10, 13/4, 14/5, 14/8, 14/9a, 14/9b, 14/10, 14/11a, 14/11b, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1A in Ariyalur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

(2.) 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 13/6 A, 13/6 B, 13/8, 13/9, 13/10, 13/4, 14/5, 14/8, 14/9a, 14/9b, 14/10, 14/11a, 14/11b, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1A in Ariyalur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The petitioner had purchased the above said lands from several vendors by various sale deeds dated 17.11.1984, 31.10.1985, 09.01.1986 and 09.05.1986 and right from the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous enjoyment and uninterrupted possession of the lands and he has also paid necessary kist and other taxes. The petitioner is also possessing necessary pattas for the above said lands.2.2. The further case of the petitioner is that on 18.9.2000, the second respondent herein, namely, Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ponneri, issued a Notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Adi-dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") r/w Rule 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioner under the Act.2.3. The petitioner submitted his objection dated 29.09.2000 pointing out that the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural lands and such lands are the only source of income and if the same is acquired, he would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss. The petitioner understands that the some other adjoining lands were also sought to be acquired and similar objections were raised by the the other land owners. Thereafter, by order dated 30.03.2001 passed under Section 4(3) of the Act, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings were dropped after inspection of the lands taking into account of the fact that it would not be possible to make pucca constructions on the said lands.2.4. The further case of the petitioner is that petitioner along with his wife had gone abroad for a long time from 26th April 2002 to 31st October 2002 and after their return to India in November 2002, the petitioner came to know that a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act in proceedings Lr.No.Rc.J1/20030/2002 dated 24.7.2002 published in the Official Gazette by the Collector, Thiruvallur District, the first respondent herein to the effect that petitioner's lands and other lands in Ariyalur Village were acquired for provisions of house sites to Adi Dravidas. The petitioner came to be informed of such development only in the end of December 2002 and thereafter, the petitioner was able to get a copy of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the Official Gazette. The said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was passed without following the mandatory requirements of serving show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections and only thereafter, the necessary orders to be passed under Section 4(3) of the Act by the Collector or authorities or Authorized Officer either accepting the objections by dropping the proceedings or otherwise. After following the above said procedure only, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act can be issued.2.5. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the above said mandatory requirements were not followed. The disputed lands were already released from acquisition in March 2001, considering the objections raised by the petitioner and decided to drop the proceedings. Therefore the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with this petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate contended that the respondents had taken all necessary steps to serve the notice as contemplated under 4(2) of the Act. It is contended that the notice was sent through registered post with acknowledgement due and the same is evident from the despatch register maintained by the respondent office affixing the postal receipt in respect of sending the notice to the petitioner herein and as per such register, the said notice was despatched to the petitioner on 12.02.2008. Therefore it is contended that there is no contravention of the provision under Section 4(2) of the Act. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that by way of precaution, the respondents also affixed a notice on a placard in the lands of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate produced a document prepared by the Tahsildar in order to substantiate the above contention. The learned Government Advocate contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in initiating the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioner herein and the respondents strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules and Act and they have not contravened any of the provisions of the Rules and the Act.