Ramaiya.. v. The Special Tahsildar, ADW & Land Acquisition Officer, Aranthangi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 3.4.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.5108 of 1999& W.M.P.No.7461 of 1999Ramaiya.. Petitionervs.1. The Special Tahsildar, ADW & Land Acquisition Officer, Aranthangi.2. The District Collector, Pudukottai. .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, as statedtherein.For petitioner : Mr.N.Ravi Shankar VallatharasuFor respondents: Mrs.D.Geetha, Addl.G.P. ORDERThe prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari, calling for the records of the second respondentrelating to the Notification published in District Gazette,Pudukkottai, dated 29.9.1997 bearing No.Na.Ka.Q3/52637/97 andquash the Notification made therein in respect of thepetitioner's land in Survey No.277/19 measuring 0.45.0 hectaresin Pallavarayan Pathai Village, Alangudi Taluk.2. The petitioner is the owner of the land comprised inS.No.277/19 to an extent of 0.60.5 hectares. According to him, hewas served with a notice in Form-I under The Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978,which is as per Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Landfor Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979, which is consonance withSection 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for HarijanWelfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978 and that the notice was issued tothe petitioner on 20.11.1995. The petitioner has given objectionto the first respondent-Special Tahsildar on 5.12.1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter, according to the petitioner, there was nocommunication. 3. According to the petitioner, in February 1997, hereceived another notice under Form-I directing for enquiry to beconducted on 24.2.1997. The petitioner appeared before the firstrespondent on 24.2.1997 and he has also filed his writtenobjection on the said date. As per his objections, there areother alternative 'natham' lands available for the benefit ofHarijans in S.No.312 which is adjacent property, that he hasgrown eucalyptus trees which are valuable to an extent of Rs.1.5lakhs, that he belongs to MBC community, that he has no otherland and that he is a small farmer. According to the petitioner,after the enquiry conducted on 24.2.1997, there was nocommunication and later, he came to know that Section 4(1)Notification has been issued by the second respondent-DistrictCollector on 29.9.1997. 4. Section 4(1) Notification is challenged by the petitioneron various grounds, including that the second respondent has notconsidered the objections raised by the petitioner in properperspective and that as per the Notification issued under Section4(1), it is seen that the same is to the satisfaction of theState Government, which is not the purport of Tamil Nadu Act 31of 1978.5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedAdditional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents thateven though it is stated under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978that it is to the satisfaction of the District Collector, Section4(1) Notification is issued in the format prescribed under theRules framed under Act 31 of 1978. As per the format prescribedunder the Rules, which is Form-II, stated to have been prescribedin accordance with Rule 3(ii) of the Rules framed under Act 31 of1978. In the said Form-II it is made clear that, "WHEREAS itappears to the Government of Tamil Nadu ...." and the said Form-II, as prescribed in the Rules, had been used by the respondentsand therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in thesame. Learned Addl.G.P. has also produced the files relating tothe land acquisition proceedings. 6. A perusal of the files produced by the learnedAddl.G.P. shows that in fact, the second respondent-DistrictCollector in his proceedings dated 24.9.1997, while consideringthe recommendations of the Special Tahsildar, Aranthangi, namelythe first respondent, has in detail explained and considered eachand every one of the objections raised by the petitionerincluding the amount of compensation relating to the property andeucalyptus trees, which according to the petitioner is worth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about Rs.1.5 lakhs. After detailed consideration, the secondrespondent-District Collector has explicitly rejected theobjections raised by the petitioner and thereafter directedSection 4(1) Notification to be published. The said order of theDistrict Collector, which runs to four pages, makes it clear thatthe District Collector has applied his mind and has arrived atthe conclusion to his satisfaction that the acquisition of thelands in question are required for the Harijan Welfare Scheme.Ultimately, in paragraph 4 of the said order, the DistrictCollector has stated as follows:@4/ epy clikahsh;fspd; Ml;nrgizfs;epybkLg;g[ mYtyhpd; fUj;J Mfpait ed;FghprPypf;fg;gl;ld/ My';Fo jhYfh gy;ytuhad;gj;ijfpuhkj;jpy; cs;s tPlw;w Mjp jpuhtpl kf;fspd;tPl;Lkid njit Fwpj;Jk; ed;F Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;ljpy;. kpff; Fiwthd mst[ epyk; kl;Lnkifafg;gLj;jg;gLtjhYk; Mjp jpuhtpl kf;fspd;mog;gil trjpf;F Kf;fpaj;Jtk; juntz;oapUg;gjhYk;jdp tl;lhl;rpahpd; ghpe;Jiufs; Vw;fg;gl;L jkpH;ehLMjp jpuhtpl eyj;jpl;l epybkLg;g[r; rl;lk; 31-1978d;fPH; gphpt[ 4(3)(gp)apy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;smjpfhu';fspd; fPH; epy clikahsh;fspd;Ml;nrgizfs; epuhfhpj;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/@ 7. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, presided over byJustice P.K.Misra, in the decision reported in 2006 (4) C.T.C.609 (Pari.R. vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare,Devakkottai), by applying the principles laid down in thatdecision, to the facts of the case, as seen from the files, it isa classic instance where the District Collector has in factapplied his mind and the files produced before this Court makethe same very clear and there is absolutely no reason todisbelieve the opinion arrived at by the District Collector onthe basis of the report submitted by the first respondent-SpecialTahsildar. 8. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that Section 4(1) Notification shows that the same isto the satisfaction of the State Government, it is true that areference to the impugned Section 4(1) Notification, dated29.9.1997 states that in clear terms "Mjp jpuhtplh; eyj; jpl;lj;jpw;fhfmjhtJ moapw;fz;l bray;nehf;fj;jpw;fhf njitg;gLfpwbjd;W jkpH;ehLmuRf;Fj; njhd;Wtjhy; /////". As I have enumerated above, the filesmake it clear that the District Collector has in fact satisfiedhimself even though in the impugned Notification, it is stated asif the State Government is satisfied. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Law is well settled that it is always the DistrictCollector's satisfaction required and not the satisfaction of anyperson other than the District Collector, unlike in the case ofthe Central Land Acquisition Act, as held by a Division Bench ofthis Court presided over by Chief Justice B.Subhashan Reddy, ashe then was, in the decision reported in 2002 (2) C.T.C. 1 (TheLand Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) vs.R.Manickammal).10. As far as the contention of the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader that the said Notification in Section 4(1) isissued in the format prescribed under the Rules as per Form-II,wherein it is stated that, "WHEREAS it appears to the Governmentof Tamil Nadu ..... " and therefore, there is no fault on thepart of the District Collector, on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, since I have already arrived at a conclusion that asper the files produced by the learned Addl.G.P., the DistrictCollector has applied his mind exhaustively, the Form does nottake away the application of mind, which has already been, infact, made by the District Collector. In any event, the reference"WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " inForm-II has no relationship with Rule 3(ii) of the Rules framedunder Act 31 of 1978 at all. Rule 3(ii) of the Rules states asfollows:"Rule 3(ii): The District Collector, if,after passing such orders as required by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 4, issatisfied that it is necessary to acquire theland, notice in Form II to that effect shallbe published in the District Gazette."Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 3 makes it clear that if the DistrictCollector is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land,Form-II be published and therefore, the mere words "WHEREAS itappears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " in Form-II whichare not contemplated in the Rule, does not make the proceedingsin this case invalid.11. In my considered view, when once the Form prescribedunder the Rules, cannot supersede the Rule, and when the Rulenowhere contemplates that the State Government should besatisfied about the acquisition, the Rule in consonance with theAct, namely Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978, makes it clear thatit is always to the satisfaction of the District Collector andtherefore, the words "WHEREAS it appears to the Government ofTamil Nadu ... " in Form-II, have to be simply ignored as non-est. This was also the opinion of the Full Bench of this Courtpresided over by Justice P.Sathasivam, as he then was, in thedecision reported in 2006 (4) C.T.C. 785 (Sharp Tools vs. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State of Tamil Nadu). Of course, the Full Bench in that case wasconsidering about Form-B prescribed under the Central LandAcquisition Act, 1894. In that proceedings, while conductingenquiry under Section 5-A of the Central Act, Rule 4(b) of theRules framed under the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules,framed as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act),contemplates that after the objections are received within thetime prescribed after issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification, theCollector shall fix the date of enquiry in order to hear theobjections and that notice for hearing is directed to be issuedin Form-B. The said Form-B prescribed as per the said Rulescontemplates a provision directing the objectors to lodge anyobjections within 15 days from the date of service of the notice.Having found that such 15 days is not the requisition as per theRule 4(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition (TamilNadu) Rules, and there is no question of any further objectionsto be filed by the land owners at the time of Section 5-Aenquiry, the Full Bench of this Court, presided over JusticeP.Sathasivam, as he then was, in the said decision, held that 15days' time prescribed in Form-B has to be ignored as non-est, onthe basis that the format prescribed under the Rules, cannotsupersede the Rules as well as the Act.12. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Full Bench, inrespect of Form-II under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the words,"WHREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " are tobe treated as non-est and have to be ignored. In any event, as Ihave stated earlier, on the factual matrix in this case, I amable to see that the District Collector who is the authoritycompetent under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978, has applied hismind and passed the orders and therefore, there is no illegalityin the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents.13. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Nocosts. W.M.P. is closed.CsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Special Tahsildar, ADW & Land Acquisition Officer, Aranthangi.2. The District Collector, Pudukottai. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.19444+ 1 cc to Mr. N. Ravishankar Vallatharasu, Advocate SR No. 18941JP(CO)SR/10.4.2008W.P.No.5108 of 1999