L BAKTHAVATCHAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated against their lands. THE acquisition of the land of the respective petitioners is sought for by the respondents for providing house sites for Adi Dravidas. THEre is no dispute that on the earlier occasion the acquisition was sought for in respect of the same lands and after the preliminary enquiry and then Collector by his proceedings dated 12.10.% had dropped the proceedings on the ground that the lands are very valuable lands and if the same is acquired it will be a heavy commitment for the State exchequer. THE Secretary to the Government, however, without agreeing with the proposal of the dropping of the acquisition proceedings sent by the Collector, had directed the Collector to proceed with the acquisition of the petitioners lands and consequently the notification was issued in the Gazette dated 17.7.97. THE petitioners have also pointed out that on an earlier occasion a large area of the land of the petitioners was acquired for various purposes and now under the direction of the Secretary to Government the Collector is proceeding with the acquisition and hence the acquisition is being challenged on the following grounds: i) When the Collector has sent the proposal to drop the earlier proceedings, thereafter the Secretary has no authority to compel the Collector to proceed with the acquisition; ii) When the Collector had pointed out the heavy financial commitment due to the acquisition of the valuable lands, the Secretary is not the authority to take a decision with regard to the financial commitment of the State exchequer without consulting the Finance Department as well as the concerned portfolio Minister; iii) Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 contemplates that the Collector has to be satisfied with regard to the selection of the site and when the Collector, taking into consideration the financial commitment, has informed the Government that it is not a suitable site, thereafter the Collector cannot be compelled to proceed with the acquisition proceedings by the Secretary. iv) When the Collector has been directed to proceed with the acquisition by the Secretary,, then it cannot be said that the site has been selected to the satisfaction of the Collector as required under Section 4(1) of the said Act.

(3.) IN the said judgment I held that it is not open to the beneficiaries to select a particular site and demand for the same for the provision of their house sites. When the Government provides the house sites by free of cost, the machinery provided under the Act has to decide with regard to the selection of the site and the financial commitments therefore. When the Collector has proposed the dropping of the acquisition and sent the recommendation to the Government; especially taking into consideration of t he heavy financial commitment for the State exchequer, it is for the Government to consider and take a decision. It is not open to the Secretary of the particular department to reject the proposal of the Collector, without consulting either the finance department or the concerned minister. Definitely it cannot be said that the Secretary of the concerned department is the "Government" to take a decision as to whether the land acquisition is to continue or the proposal of the Collector has to be accepted, considering the financial commitment.