DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. V AMSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three writ appeals have been preferred against the order dated 29. 7. 2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 5470 and 5471 of 1998, which had come to be filed challenging the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and the notification issued therefor under section 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 ('act' in short ). The State has filed Writ Appeal Nos. 161 and 162 of 2006 insofar as that order was in favour of the writ petitioners and Writ Petition no. 369 of 2006 has been filed by the land owner against that portion of the order whereby the learned single Judge did not extend the benefit of his order to the land standing in the name of Sellathaiammal.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 5470 of 1998, the petitioner was V. Amsam, who claimed to be the owner of the land in Survey No. 479/1; to an extent of 5. 30. 0 hectares; survey No. 80/1, to an extent of 0. 87. 5 hectares and Survey No. 480/2, to an extent of 0. 35. 0 hectares in Pandavarmangalam Village. She is the owner of the land in Survey No. 478 in the very same village and the adjoining land belongs to her husband, in which an industry called Bharath Chemical Industries has been set up. A residential quarters for the employees of this industry has been constructed in Survey No. 479/1. There is a tamarind thope in the land and the other lands have been used for agricultural, horticultural and dairy purposes. A notice under Section 4 (2) of the Act read with Rule 3 (i) of the Tamil Nadu acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 ('rules' in short)dated 15. 12. 1996 was served on the petitioner on 1. 1. 1997 in respect of the lands under Survey Nos. 479/1, 479/2, 481, 482/1 and 482/2. It indicated that the enquiry would be held on 10. 1. 1997. The petitioner filed an application dated 4. 1. 1997 requesting sufficient time to file her objections and prayed for time till 1. 2. 1997. A detailed objection dated 18. 1. 1997 was sent by the petitioner, which was received by the respondents on 20. 1. 1997. Since no enquiry was conducted on 10. 1. 1997, the petitioner was awaiting further communication. An additional objection was filed indicating that the Panchayat Union had granted approval for the purpose of putting up construction and the factory had been registered as a small scale industry. It was further indicated that the land in survey No. 479/2 did not belong to her and that Survey No. 481 belonged to her son. On 22. 7. 1997, she received a communication that the notification under section 4 (1) had been published on 31. 3. 1997 and the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry on 22. 8. 1997. She once again submitted her objections on 16. 8. 1997 stating that about 100 acres of poromboke lands were available very near to the existing place where the Adi Dravidars were residing, but no further communication was served. According to her, the notice in Form-I under Rule 3 (i)of the Rules requires 15 days' time for filing of objections after service of notice and oral enquiry is required to be conducted only after an opportunity of filing of objections is given. But since the notice was served on the petitioner on 1. 1. 1997 indicating that 10. 1. 1997 was the date of enquiry, the condition relating to 15 days' time was not complied with. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the notice was not in accordance with the rules. It is also her grievance that though she had filed by her objections on 18. 1. 1997, which was received by the authorities on 20. 1. 1997, there was no communication thereafter. According to her, the Special Tahsildar is supposed to hold the enquiry and submit the report to the District Collector. However, copy of such report was never served on the petitioner. It is also her case that though notice in respect of Survey Nos. 479/1 and 479/2 refers to the petitioner, she is not the owner of the land in Survey No. 479/1 and that land belonged to her mother-in-law, Sellathaiammal, who died in 1984.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 5471 of 1998, the contention of the petitioner is that no notice was ever served on the petitioner and therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings must be quashed. He had also produced the certificate issued by the Post Master that Thiru. V. Parthiban, S/o. Vidyasekara Pandian, had not refused to receive any letter addressed to him from 1. 12. 1996 to 12. 9. 1998. In this writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed stating that as per the revenue records, V. Amsam (petitioner in W. P. No. 5470 of 1998) was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 479/1 and 2 and the V. Parthiban (petitioner in w. P. No. 5471 of 1998) was the owner in respect of the land in S. No. 481 and that sellathaiammal was the owner of the land in respect of S. Nos. 481/1 and 482/2.