N. Thirunavukkarasu v. 1.The District CollectorThanjavur.2.The Special TahsildarLand Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare)Tiruvaiyaru.3.The District Adi Dravidar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :06.06.2007 C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.A.No. 148 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 2007N. Thirunavukkarasu... Appellant-vs-1.The District CollectorThanjavur.2.The Special TahsildarLand Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare)Tiruvaiyaru.3.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Thanjavur.... RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against theorder of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.667 of 1999dated 03.02.2006 the Writ Petition No.667 of 1999 presented underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarito call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1strespondent dated 16.10.1998 in Na.Ka.No.20991/97/M1 as published in theDistrict Gazettee Tanhavur dated 22.10.1998 in respect of the landsbelonging to the petitioner bearing S.No.486/1A measuring 0.57.0hectares in Thiruvaiyaru West Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, TanhavurDistrict. For appellant :: Mr. T. Ravichandran for Mr. Satish ParasaranFor respondents :: Mr. Raja Kalifulla Government Pleader JUDGMENT( DELIVERED BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)The appellant has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.667 of 1999,challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Thanjavur, dated16.10.1998, passed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 4 (1)of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act,1978, (in short, "the Act"), deciding to acquire the land belonging to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner bearing Survey No.486/1A, measuring an extent of 0.57.0hectares in Thiruvaiyaru West Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, ThanjavurDistrict, contending interalia that he being the owner, was not givenan opportunity to submit his objections and also copy of the reportsubmitted by the enquiring of the Collector, has not been furnished.The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, holding thatin respect of the acquisition, award was passed as early as on29.12.1998, while the writ petition came to be filed only afterwards,viz., on 12.01.1999. It is, as against the said order dismissing thewrit petition, present appeal is filed.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as wellas the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. It was the submission of the appellant that no opportunitywas given to him to file his objections, and therefore, the procedurecontemplated under the Act has been violated. The learned GovernmentPleader was directed to produce entire records relating to theacquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleaderhas produced the same. On perusal of the file, the following facts arerevealed:"(i) The notice as required under Section 4(2) ofthe Act read with Rule 3(i) of the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare SchemesRules, 1979 (in short, "the Rules") in Form No.I wasissued by the second respondent, Special Tahsildar,Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare),Thiruvaiyaru, on 30.01.1998, and the same was servedon the appellant on 31.01.1998;(ii)After receiving the said notice, the appellant,by his letter dated 16.02.1998, submitted hisobjections;(iii)Thereafter, the second respondent, SpecialTahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi DravidarWelfare), Thiruvaiyaru, has submitted a reportdated 09.03.1998, to the Collector, as per Section4(3)(b) of the Act, containing hisrecommendations;(iv)The District Collector, viz., the firstrespondent, has passed order dated 16.10.1998under Section 4(1) of the Act, having satisfiedthat it is necessary to acquire the land inquestion for the purpose of Harijan WelfareSchemes;(v)The said notification has been published in theDistrict Gazette on 22.10.1998;(vi)The enquiry notice in Form No.III, fordetermining the compensation amount was issued on09.11.1998;(vii)The petitioner has submitted his objections on26.11.1998; and(viii)The award was passed on 29.12.1998. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Admittedly, the writ petition came to be filed on 12.01.1999.The objections submitted by the appellant both on 16.02.1998 and on26.11.1998, is that he was not having any other land other than the landsought to be acquired, of course, also disputing the quantum. 5. It is admitted that the appellant has given objections afternotice of proposal of acquisition under Section 4(2) and also after thefinal notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, viz., on09.11.1998, objecting to the quantum of compensation. The onlyobjection raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the enquiryreport dated 09.03.1998, submitted by the second respondent, SpecialTahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, to theDistrict Collector has not been served, calling upon him to submit hisobjections. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that, in caseswhere other than the District Collector, any other officer authorised byhim has conducted enquiry pursuant to the notice issued under Section 4(2) of the Act, the said officer shall submit a report to the Collectoralong with his recommendations and it is, after considering the saidreport, the District Collector should pass final order under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 4(3)of the Act, which states as follows:"4. Power to acquire land.- (1) ....(2)...(3)(a) the District Collector may, where he hashimself called upon he owner or other person toshow cause under sub-section (2), pass such ordersas he may deem fit on the cause so shown;(b) Where any officer authorised by the DistrictCollector has called upon the owner of otherperson to show cause under sub section(2), theofficer so authorised shall make a report to theDistrict Collector containing his recommendationson the cause so shown for the decision of theDistrict Collector. After considering suchreport, the District Collector may pass suchorders as he may deem fit."6. In this case, it is not in dispute that the DistrictCollector has in fact considered the report of the second respondent,Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare),Thiruvaiyaru, dated 09.03.1998, as it is referred to in the impugnedorder itself. The only fact that remains to be considered is, as towhether the appellant was entitled to a copy of the report filed by theSpecial Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare),Thiruvaiyaru, to enable him to file his reply, to enable, the DistrictCollector to pass orders. It is, to substantiate the said contention,the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Full Benchjudgement of this Court rendered in R. Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar,Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai and another reported in 2006 (3) Law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Weekly 1000. While dealing with the above said aspect, it is true, thatthe Full Bench has concluded that the report or recommendations of theauthorised officer should be furnished to the owner and the owner mustbe given two weeks time to make his further representation before theDistrict Collector, however, holding that the District Collector, neednot conduct any further personal hearing. However, the Full Bench incategorical terms held that, mere non-furnishing of copy of the reportwould not have the ipso-facto effect of vitiating the acquisitionproceedings. The same has to be considered on the point of prejudicethat may be caused to the land owner in not furnishing the copy of suchreport of the authorised officer, based on the facts and circumstancesof each case. In this regard, the Full Bench has laid down the law asfollows."37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of thereport to enable the land owner to make a furtherrepresentation to the District Collector does notmean that in every case, where such report has notbeen furnished, the ultimate order passed by theDistrict Collector deciding to acquire the land isautomatically vitiated. The scope for judicialinterference in the matter relating to acquisitionof land obviously being very limited, the court ineach case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudicedthe person concerned. The object of furnishing thereport and affording further opportunity to the landowner to make a further representation is obviouslyto pinpoint any deficiency in the report of theauthorised 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 suchaspect before the District Collector. In otherwords, if the authorised officer has considered therelevant aspects indicated by the objector and madehis recommendation, merely because a copy of suchreport is not furnished and no further opportunityis given to the land owner, may not be a ground toquash the land acquisition proceedings. On theother hand, if important aspects, which have beenhighlighted by the land owner, have been ignored bythe authorised officer, it may be reasonable toinfer non-furnishing of such report and non-offeringof opportunity to make further representation mighthave vitiated the ultimate decision of the DistrictCollector. These are matters to be considered onthe basis of the facts and circumstances in eachacquisition and it should not be construed that as amatter of law in every case where copy of the reporthas not been furnished and opportunity of makingfurther representation had been denied, it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimatelythe court has to judge the prejudice caused to suchperson by keeping in view the facts andcircumstances in particular case."7. Applying the law laid down as stated above to the facts andcircumstances of the case and especially in the face of the nature ofobjections raised by the appellant in respect of proposal foracquisition on 16.02.1998 and also in respect of compensation on09.11.1998, we are of the view that by non-furnishing the copy of thereport, no prejudice has in fact been caused to the petitioner. In viewof the same, even on merits of the case, the appeal fails and the samedeserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is alsodismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkhTo1.The District CollectorThanjavur.2.The Special TahsildarLand Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare)Tiruvaiyaru.3.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Thanjavur.2 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.31804, 32194. W.A.No.148 of 2007RS(CO)RVL 15.06.2007