Judgment :- The writ petitioner a senior citizen and owner of Punja land comprised in RS.No:148/1 measuring 0.56.5 hectares situate at No.38, Maharajapuram Village, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur Dikstrict, besides being a tenant of R.S.No.148/3, measuring 0.59.5 hectares situate in the very same village belonging to Arunajadeswarar Temple has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the notification issued by the District Collector, the second respondent in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Thanjavur District Issue (Special Publication) dated 17.10.1997 in S.No.32 in so far as the acquisition of lands located at No.38,Maharajapuram Village, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:- (1) The second respondent-District Collector had passed the orders under section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme without application of mind, by simply accepting the report o the first respondent and this vitiates ;the acquisition; (2) The acquisition is violative of section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme, arbitrary and vitiated by non application of mind? Both the points could be considered together. 3. In order to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars of Ayyanallur, hamlet of No.37, Maharajapuram Village who were living in congestion the lands comprised in R.S.No.148/1 and 148/3 were identified. The lands are located near the existing Adi Dravidars. R.S.No.148/1 is owned by Sri Arunajadeswarar Temple represented by its Trustee while the petitioner owns R.s.No.148/3. Proposals were submitted by the Special Revenue Inspector. 4. The first respondent served a notice in Form-I dated 1.7.1997 on the petitioner and the temple in terms of Rule 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The petitioner was called upon to attend the enquiry on 22.7.1997, and state his objections if any within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The first respondent conducted an enquiry. One R.Ramachandran, the Temple Clerk attended the enquiry on behalf of the temple, while the petitioner appeared in person. The petitioner submitted his objections and during enquriy his statement was also recorded. The petitioner raised number of objections. 5. The first respondent conducted an enquiry. One R.Ramachandran, the Temple Clerk attended the enquiry on behalf of the temple, while the petitioner appeared in person. The petitioner submitted his objections and during enquriy his statement was also recorded. The petitioner raised number of objections. 5. After holding the enquiry and considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, while the Temple has not submitted its objections within the time extended, proposals were submitted to the second respondent-District Collector under section 4(1). The District Collector considered the objections as well as the report submitted, overruled the objections and decided to acquire the lands and directed issue of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly a Notification was published in the District Gazette dated 10.10.1997. Challenging the notification the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of one of the items and who claims to be the tenant of the other item. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the above two contentions while Mrs.Malarvizhi, learned special Government Pleader contended that there are no merits in the above contentions, besides pointing out that the respondents 1 and 2 have acted strictly in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. 6. It is also contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that all the objections raised by the petitioner was considered by the first respondent, who submitted his report and the second respondent also considered the objections and overruled those objections while accepting the report of the first respondent. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that no interference is called for in this writ petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner raised the said two legal contentions and at the hearing the learned counsel rightly pointed out that the Collector has not applied his mind and acted arbitrarily. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent-District Collector who has ordered acquisition under section 4(1) has overruled the objections without application of mind and without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement in Thirugnanasambandam and others Vs. The Govt.of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2001 (1) MLJ 328 and Ramakrishna Naidu V. District Collector, reported in 2001 (3) CTC 649 . In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement in Thirugnanasambandam and others Vs. The Govt.of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2001 (1) MLJ 328 and Ramakrishna Naidu V. District Collector, reported in 2001 (3) CTC 649 . In the said two pronouncements this court held that the acquisition is bad as the District Collector has overruled the objections just as a matter of routine, accepting the recommendations of the Tahsildar and overruling the objections by passing a cyclostyled order. This is not the case here. 9. As seen from the proceedings of the District Collector impugned dated 10.10.1997, the objections raised by the petitioner, as well a the report submitted by the Special Tahsildar were considered side by side and the District Collector overruled the objections while accepting the report of the Land Acquisition Tahsildar. This is not a cyclostyled order. It is sufficient if the District Collector refers to the objections as well as the remarks and on a consideration he records his satisfaction to rejct the objections raised. The two decisions referred to by the counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts of the case. Hence, this contention fails. 10. Nextly, it was contended that the District Collector who has overruled the objections should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before issuing a notification under section 4(1) and consider the objections independently. In this respect the counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this court in Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Vs. The District Collector, reported in 1997 TLNJ 311. According to the learned counsel, the Division Bench has laid down that the District Collector should have afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the order under section 4(1). The learned Special Government Pleader rightly contended that no opportunity need be granted in a case where the collector authorises the Special Tahsildar to serve a notice in Form.I, hold an enquiry after receipt of objections and thereafter submits a report. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench would show that the said judgment is not an authority for the proposition advanced by the counsel for petitioner. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench would show that the said judgment is not an authority for the proposition advanced by the counsel for petitioner. In the case considered by the Division Bench, the Tahsildar has submitted a report and the Collector who is the authority under Section 4(1) and who has not authorised the Tahsildar to exercise his powers has not afforded an opportunity of hearing and therefore the Division Bench held that the Collector who exercised the powers under section 4(1) should have afforded an opportunity of hearing. When the Collector himself exercises the powers then he has to conduct an enquriy which is mandatory. If the Collector authorises the Tahsildar under section (2) of Section 4, then the Tahsildar holds an enquiry after affording an opportunity with respect to the objections submitted before the date fixed, thereafter the Tahsildar submits his report as an Officer authorised under section 4(2). The said report is considered by the District Collector, who may decide to proceed further after considering the report submitted and at that stage, it is not necessary to afford an opportunity. The case that was considered by the Division Bench is a case where the Collector himself has initiated action under section 4(1) and he has not authorised the Tahsildar to act on his behalf. Therefore, the said Division Bench Judgement has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. The last of the contention which was raised at the time of hearing deserves to be sustained. The petitioner has not placed the copy of Form-I notice but has placed a copy of Section 4(1) Notification issued by the Tahsildar. The 4(1) Notification issued by the Collector under the Act proceeds thus:- "The lands situate in the schedule are acquired for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme and therefore the notification is issued under section 4(1) of the Act." 12. The above is the notification. In the schedule after setting out the name of the village, taluk the purpose of acquisition has been set out as hereunder:- 13. The above is the notification. In the schedule after setting out the name of the village, taluk the purpose of acquisition has been set out as hereunder:- 13. Therefore it is clear from the notification that the lands in question is acquired for the four purposes namely, provision of house sites for Adi Dravidars, for location of burial ground, for provision of pathway to Adi Dravidars, provision of burial ground, for provision of pathway to Adi Dravidars colony, for formation of connecting road section. The purpose of acquisition as set out in the Gazette would demonstrate non application of mind by the District Collector, who has decided to acquire and issued Section 4(1) Notification. It is true that all the above purpose fall under the definition of Harijan Welfare Scheme as defined in the Act. Under the Act, a land cannot be acquired for all the above purposes indicated in the notification. It could be for one of the purposes or purpose connected or adjunct. 14. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the land has been acquired for the purpose of house sites to Adi Dravidars. But this is not reflected in the gazette notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act. The gazette notification refers to all the purposes, included in the definition of Harijan Welfare Scheme as defined in the Act. This demonstrates the non application of mind in issuing the gazette notification in deciding to acquire the land and issuing the gazette publication under section 4(1). This is an arbitrary exercise of power. This contention advanced by the learned counsel of the petitioner deserves to be sustained. 15. Though in the proceedings of the Collector dated 10.10.1997 proceeds as if the lands are acquired for provision of house sites to Adi Dravidars, but the 4(1) Notification proceeds as if the lands are acquired for the five different purposes enumerated in Section 4(1) Notification, which would demonstrate the non application of mind by the Collector while exercising the powers under Section 4(1) of the Act. On this short ground, the notification which is challenged in this writ petition is quashed as it exhibits total non application of mind by the District Collector. Being a statutory authority exercising statutory powers, the District Collector should apply his mind and indicate the purpose for which the land is acquired while issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. On this short ground, the notification which is challenged in this writ petition is quashed as it exhibits total non application of mind by the District Collector. Being a statutory authority exercising statutory powers, the District Collector should apply his mind and indicate the purpose for which the land is acquired while issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 16. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings is quashed. Consequently connected WMP is closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.