P.Govindaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.01.2009C O R A M:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.No.9887 of 2001P.Govindaraj .. Petitioner-vs-1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by itsSecretary, Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The District Collector,Coimbatore.3.Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare), Coimbatore-18. .. RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling forthe records relating to Form -I notice dated 18.12.1998 inNa.Ka.No.1800/09(A) passed by the third respondent and Award inNo.2/99-2000 dated 04.2.2000 passed by the third respondent andquash the same. For petitioner :: Mr.S.Parthasarathy For respondents :: Ms.Sneha, GA *****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 his land inSurvey Nos.859/1A and 2 (part) situated at Thekkampatti Village,Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District under the provisions of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act,1978 (for short 'T.N.Act 31 of 1978'), has filed the present writpetition.3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 15.5.2001.An interim order against dispossession of the lands from thepetitioner was also granted. The interim order came to be vacatedon 06.5.2002 since possession was taken over. A counter affidavithas also been filed by the third respondent justifying theacquisition of the lands for the purpose of providing house sitesto the beneficiaries, who admittedly belong to the AdidravidarCommunity of that village.4. The third respondent being the prescribed authorityinitiated proposals for the acquisition of lands for the HarijanWelfare Scheme and the notice dated 15.12.1998 under Section 4(2)was issued and served on the owner of the lands. The original ownerreceived the notice on 06.12.1998. An enquiry was conducted on31.12.1998. The land owner did not participate in the enquiry.Instead, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.193/98 in theDistrict Munsif Court at Mettupalayam in spite of a specific barunder section 17 of the T.N.Act 31 of 1978. 5. Necessary proposals were sent to the District Collector.The District Collector accepted the proposal for the landacquisition and a notification under Section 4(1) was published inthe District Government Gazette on 19.3.1999. An Award in 2/99-2000has been passed on 04.2.2000 and the compensation amount has beendeposited into the Principal Sub-Court at Coimbatore. Possessionwas taken over on 04.10.2000 and plots were laid in the land. 6. The following contentions were raised by the petitioner:-(a)The land that is sought to be acquired is the only landby which the petitioner is eking out his livelihood; and (b)The land has been developed at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs andhe had also mortgaged the land. Further, even while thesuit was pending, the land has been acquired.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 Benchthereafter directed the individual Writ Petitions to be decided ontheir merits and in accordance with the direction of the FullBench. Thus the connected matters came to be grouped together and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were posted before this Court on being specially ordered by theHonourable Chief Justice.8. In the counter affidavit dated 'nil' (January 2002) filedby the third respondent, it was stated that the petitioner did notparticipate in the enquiry. The suit filed by him was notmaintainable. The lands were kept barren all these years and thathe had spent Rs.10 lakhs was not believable.9. The grounds urged by the petitioner is not believable.Since the ruling of the Full Bench in R.Pari's case (cited supra)is the guiding factor, it is necessary to refer to the followingpassages found in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43:-''37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the reportto enable the land owner to make a further representationto the District Collector does not mean that in everycase, where such report has not been furnished, theultimate order passed by the District Collector decidingto acquire the land is automatically vitiated. The scopefor judicial interference in the matter relating toacquisition of land obviously being very limited, theCourt in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced theperson concerned. The object of furnishing the report andaffording further opportunity to the land owner to make afurther representation is obviously to pinpoint anydeficiency in the report of the authorised officer. Ifany particular aspect has been highlighted by the landowner and has not been considered by the authorisedofficer, the land owner would get a further opportunityto highlight such aspect before the District Collector.In other words, if the authorised officer has consideredthe relevant aspects indicated by the objector and madehis recommendation, merely because a copy of such reportis not furnished and no further opportunity is given tothe land owner, may not be a ground to quash the landacquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if importantaspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner,have been ignored by the authorised officer, it may bereasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report andnon-offering of opportunity to make furtherrepresentation might have vitiated the ultimate decisionof the District Collector. These are matters to beconsidered on the basis of the facts and circumstances ineach acquisition and it should not be construed that as amatter of law in every case where copy of the report hasnot been furnished and opportunity of making furtherrepresentation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such acquisition. Ultimately the Court has to judge theprejudice caused to such person by keeping in view thefacts and circumstances in particular case.....42. However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat. Theobservation 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, theorder which is communicated to the land owner does notindicate any reason why the objection has been rejected,if the application of mind is reflected in the file evenby way of notings and endorsements, the ultimate decisionto acquire the land cannot be said to be vitiated merelybecause the order which is communicated to the landowner/objector does not contain any detailed reasons. Therequirement is that the materials on record, that is tosay the relevant file, should indicate application ofmind to the relevant facts and circumstances and notpassing of a formal reasoned order as is required injudicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The functionobviously being administrative in nature, it is futile toexpect furnishing of detailed reasons in the order whichis communicated 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 in thenotice published in the Gazette, would not be sufficientto hold that there has been non-application of mind andthe question as to whether there has been application ofmind or non-application is required to be considered onthe basis of the return filed and the relevant file to beproduced before the Court.43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusionsare as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''The owner should be furnished with a copy ofthe report/recommendation of the authorisedofficer. 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. In the light of the above, the writ petition ismisconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will standdismissed. No costs. js Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government, Adi-dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George,Chennai-9.2.The District Collector,Coimbatore.3.Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar ((Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare), Coimbatore-18.1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR.660rs (co)dv/30.1.W.P.No.9887 of 2001