Palaniammal v. The District Collector, Salem & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.01.2009C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.No.4140 of 1996andW.P.M.P.No.34314 of 2002Palaniammal.. Petitioner-vs-1. The District Collector, Salem.2. The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (ADW), Sankari. .. RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling forthe records of the respondents ending with the Notificationpublished at page 6 of the Extraordinary Issue of Salem DistrictGazette No.9 dated 08.2.1996 and the order of the secondrespondent in Roc.1399/94(A), dated 29.2.1996 and quash the same. For petitioner :: Mr. N.KulandaiveluFor respondents :: Mr.A.Arumugam, Spl.G.P.*****O R D E R Heard both sides and perused the records filed in this caseas well as the original records circulated by the learnedGovernment Advocate.2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the acquisition of her landin Survey No.175/2D1 situated at Erumaipatty Village, SankariTaluk, Salem District under the provisions of the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (forshort 'T.N.Act 31 of 1978'), has filed the present writ petition.3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 04.4.1996.An interim order against dispossession of the lands from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was also granted. The writ petition was dismissed forwant of prosecution on 14.3.2002 and was restored on 15.7.2002.The original file was circulated to justify the acquisition oflands for the purpose of providing house sites to thebeneficiaries, who admittedly belong to the ArundhadiyarCommunity of that village.4. The second respondent being the prescribed authorityinitiated proposals for the acquisition of lands for the HarijanWelfare Scheme and the notice dated 04.10.1995 under Section 4(2)was issued and served on the owner of the lands. An enquiry wasconducted on 25.10.1995. The land owner sent his objection bypost.5. The objections given by the land owners were considered bythe authority concerned. He sent his proposal to the DistrictCollector. The District Collector rejected the objections given bythe land owners by his order dated 04.2.1996. Thereafter, anotification under Section 4(1) was published in the DistrictGovernment Gazette on 08.2.1996. An Award in Award No.15/95-96hasbeen passed on 26.3.1996 and the compensation amount has beendeposited into the Sub-Court at Sankari. Possession was taken overby the second respondent on 16.5.2002 after the dismissal of thewrit petition for default. Pattas have also been given to thebeneficiaries. 6. The following contentions were raised by the petitioner:-(a)The District Collector did not apply his mind to theobjections and he had not personally satisfied himselfwith the proposal;(b)The notification published under Section 4(1) of theT.N.Act 31 of 1978 itself speaks only about the StateGovernment being satisfied;(c)No personal enquiry was conducted; (d)The land that is sought to be acquired is the only landby which the petitioner is eking out her livelihood; (e)The District Collector did not give the report of theSpecial Tahsildar; and(f)No notice was given to the petitioner but it was given toher husband who gave the land to her by way of asettlement.7. Before the issues can be decided, it must be stated thatthis matter was filed at the time when a Full Bench of this Courtwas called upon to decide conflicting judgments of this Court onthe procedure involved under T.N. Act 31 of 1978. P.K.Misra, J.,speaking for the Full Bench rendered its opinion on 25.8.2006. Ithas been since reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (R.Pari -vs- TheSpecial Tahsildar (ADW), Devakottai and another). The Full Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter directed the individual Writ Petitions to be decided ontheir merits and in accordance with the direction of the FullBench. Thus, this matter and the connected matters came to begrouped together and were posted before this Court on beingspecially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice.8. On the basis of the original records, the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader submitted that the petitioner's name was not inthe revenue records. But objections made on her behalf wereconsidered. It is the District Collector who was satisfied aboutthe need for land acquisition. Hence, the contentions raised bythe petitioner have no substance.9. Since the ruling of the Full Bench in R.Pari's case (citedsupra) is the guiding factor, it is necessary to refer to thefollowing passages found in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43:-''37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of thereport to enable the land owner to make a furtherrepresentation to the District Collector does not meanthat in every case, where such report has not beenfurnished, the ultimate order passed by the DistrictCollector deciding to acquire the land is automaticallyvitiated. The scope for judicial interference in thematter relating to acquisition of land obviously beingvery limited, the Court in each case is required to findout whether non-furnishing of the report in any way hasprejudiced the person concerned. The object offurnishing the report and affording further opportunityto the land owner to make a further representation isobviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report ofthe authorised officer. If any particular aspect hasbeen highlighted by the land owner and has not beenconsidered by the authorised officer, the land ownerwould get a further opportunity to highlight such aspectbefore the District Collector. In other words, if theauthorised officer has considered the relevant aspectsindicated by the objector and made his recommendation,merely because a copy of such report is not furnishedand no further opportunity is given to the land owner,may not be a ground to quash the land acquisitionproceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects,which have been highlighted by the land owner, have beenignored by the authorised officer, it may be reasonableto infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offeringof opportunity to make further representation might havevitiated the ultimate decision of the DistrictCollector. These are matters to be considered on thebasis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisitionand it should not be construed that as a matter of law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in every case where copy of the report has not beenfurnished and opportunity of making furtherrepresentation had been denied, it is sufficient toquash such acquisition. Ultimately the Court has tojudge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping inview the facts and circumstances in particular case.....42. However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat.The observation made by the Division Bench or the SingleJudge regarding requirement to indicate reason whilepassing the order has to be understood in the context ofnon-application of mind. Even though in a given case,the order which is communicated to the land owner doesnot indicate any reason why the objection has beenrejected, if the application of mind is reflected in thefile even by way of notings and endorsements, theultimate decision to acquire the land cannot be said tobe vitiated merely because the order which iscommunicated to the land owner/objector does not containany detailed reasons. The requirement is that thematerials on record, that is to say the relevant file,should indicate application of mind to the relevantfacts and circumstances and not passing of a formalreasoned order as is required in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The function obviously beingadministrative in nature, it is futile to expectfurnishing of detailed reasons in the order which iscommunicated to the person. It is necessary to entersuch caveat lest it may be construed that in every case,where the order of rejection communicated to the landowner does not contain the reasons, the rejectioncommunicated to the land owner does not contain thereasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately theCourt is required to find out in each case whether therehas been application of mind. Therefore, the briefreasons, which are contemplated, can be given either inthe file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc. oreven can be reflected in the order. But mere non-reflection of reasons in the order communicated or inthe notice published in the Gazette, would not besufficient to hold that there has been non-applicationof mind and the question as to whether there has beenapplication of mind or non-application is required to beconsidered on the basis of the return filed and therelevant file to be produced before the Court.43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusionsare as follows:-''The owner should be furnished with a copy ofthe report/recommendation of the authorised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officer. Thereafter, he should be given twoweeks' time to make further representation, ifany, before the District Collector. It is notnecessary for the District Collector to give afurther personal hearing or make any furtherenquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of thereport would not have the ipso facto effect ofvitiating the proceedings and the question ofprejudice to the land owner is required to beconsidered in each case depending upon the factsand circumstances. The District Collector isexpected to reflect the reasons, but merelybecause the communication to the land owner doesnot contain the reasons, the decision of theCollector is not ipso facto vitiated and it wouldalways open to the concerned authority to provebefore the Court, if such action of the Collectoris challenged, that there has been application ofmind and the reasons are available in therelevant records relating to such acquisition.The necessity to record the reasons is applicablewhere the Collector himself makes the enquiry andalso where the Collector takes an appropriatedecision on the basis of thereport/recommendation made by the authorisedofficer." (Emphasis Added)10. The other contention that the District Collector was notsatisfied and it was the Government's satisfaction, it must bestated that the original file produced shows that there is noreference to any Government's intervention in this case. On theother hand, the District Collector's personal satisfaction isclearly reflected in the file. The Gazette Notification producedby the petitioner cannot be the basis for determination of theissue. As directed by the Full Bench in R.Pari's case, (citedsupra), it is ultimately that the file must reflect thesatisfaction of the Collector and the Court must be satisfied withthe procedure adopted by the respondents (see the extractsreproduced in para 9).11. The Supreme Court vide its decision in DelhiAdministration -vs- Gurdip Singh Uban reported in (2000) 7 SCC296, dealt with the question of recording reasons in case ofdeclaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. The Supreme Court in that decision in para 49, had observedas follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''No reasons or other facts need be mentioned in theSection 6 declaration on its face. If the satisfactionis challenged in the Court, the Government can show therecord upon which the Government acted and justify thesatisfaction expressed in Section 6 declaration".These observations will apply in its entirety to the case on hand.12. In the light of the above, the writ petition ismisconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will standdismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneouspetition is also dismissed. jsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The District Collector, Salem.2. The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (ADW), Sankari.+ 1 cc to Mr. N. Kolandaivelu, Advocate SR No.270+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.666 order inW.P.No. 4140 of 1996SSN(CO)SR/29.1.2009