G SRIRAMULU AND S PADMA ALIAS PADMAVATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (ADW)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the agricultural lands in No. 63, Pichanoor village of Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. The lands in S. Nos. 30/2, 42/2, 43/2A stand in the name of the first petitioner. The lands in S. Nos. 30/1, 42/1 and 43/1B stand in the name of the second petitioner. The lands are agricultural in nature. The entire extent of lands is being irrigated by well water and paddy is being cultivated therein and there are more than 200 mango, coconut and teak trees in the said lands.

(3.) It has been further stated that notice in Form-I under R.C.A. No. 469/99, dated 30.6.1999, had been issued by the second respondent proposing to acquire a portion of the lands owned by the petitioners for the purpose of house-sites of Adi Dravidars and Arunthathiyars of Rajipatti, H/O Kondasamudram and R.S. Nagar of Gudiyatham Town. The name of the first petitioner did not figure in the Form-I notice, though his lands in S. Nos. 30/1, 42/1 and 43/1B were proposed to be acquired. In their objections submitted, on 27.7.1999, the petitioners had, inter alia, pointed out that already an extent of 1.75 acres in S. Nos. 44/2B2, 44/2B3, and 44/2C1 of Pichanoor Village of Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, were being acquired from the second petitioner and her father for the purpose of formation of Left Main Canal under Mordhana Reservoir Project, Gudiyatham. Further, an extent of 1.76 acres, with a circular agricultural well and pump set, in Kondasamudram Village of Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, had been acquired from the father of the second petitioner for construction of houses under the Neighbourhood Scheme, resulting in award No. 4/88-89, dated 13.10.1988. Various objections had been raised in the written representation submitted to the first respondent, on 20.11.2000. With regard to S. No. 31, it has been stated that it is adjacent to the lands of the petitioners and forms its Southern and Eastern boundaries. A licensed quarry is in existence, being operated under the quarry license issued by the first respondent, on 28.10.2002, valid for a period of five years. Since no further proceedings had been taken by the respondents, with regard to the lands in question, objections were lodged with the second respondent.