Judgment :- Challenge in these Writ Petitions is the Notification No.10-A in Villupuram District Gazettee dated 12.03.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1998. 2. Facts which led to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows:- In Pootai village of Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District, there are about 350 Adi Dravidar families, who were identified as houseless poor. Action had been taken to provide house sites by acquisitioning the patta lands to the extent of 46. 0 Hec., in various Survey Numbers. A proposal under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was submitted by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare. On such proposal, the District Collector in his proceedings dated 211. 1996 has given Authorisation to acquire the lands under Sec.4 (2) of the Act, authorising the Special Tahsildar to be the authorised officer to perform the functions under Sec.4(2) of the Act. 3. Form I Notice under Rule 3(i) was served on the land owners on 09.01.1997. The Special Tahsildar has conducted the Enquiry under Sec.4(2) of the Act. The Petitioners filed Written Objections. The Objections raised by the Land Owners were overruled. After consideration of the Report of the Special Tahsildar, the District Collector approved the same and the Impugned Notification No.10-A in Villupuram District Gazettee was made on 12.03.1999, acquisitioning the lands to the extent of 46. 0 Hec. 4. Subsequent to the publication of Notification, one Aiyubkhan, who has filed W.P.No.7109 of 1999 before this Court, has filed objection before the Collector. After inspecting the lands and Enquiry, the District Collector ordered withdrawal of lands 0.96.5 Hec., owned by the said Aiyubkhan and his lands were excluded from acquisition. The remaining extent of 45. 5 Hec. Lands were proposed to be acquired and further pursued. 5. The main objection raised by the Petitioners is that no effective Notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act before Publication of Notification was issued. It was contended that the names of the Petitioners were not correctly given and Form I Notice was not served upon some of the Petitioners. 5 Hec. Lands were proposed to be acquired and further pursued. 5. The main objection raised by the Petitioners is that no effective Notice under Sec.4(2) of the Act before Publication of Notification was issued. It was contended that the names of the Petitioners were not correctly given and Form I Notice was not served upon some of the Petitioners. It is the further contention that the lands of the Petitioners are wet lands and as per G.O.Ms.No.2135 dated 24.09.1979, wet lands should not be acquired for housing schemes and the District Collector has not recorded any satisfaction that the Acquisition of the wet lands is unavoidable. 6. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the objections raised by the Petitioners were duly considered. It was further contended that the Enquiry Report of the Special Tahsildar was duly considered by the Collector and only upon satisfaction of the Report, Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published and the same cannot be challenged. 7. The first contention urged by the Petitioners is that Rule 3(i) Notice was not at all served on the Petitioners and no attempt was made to serve Form I upon the Petitioners. Learned Government Advocate has produced the File. On perusal of the records, it is seen that Form I – Rule 3(i) Notice was not served upon the Petitioners. The covers sent were returned with endorsements "Returned to the Sender " or "Left India". Though Form I Notice was not served upon the Petitioners, the Petitioners have filed objections before the Special Tahsildar. On behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.No.8767 of 1999 - K. Govindapillai, a legal notice was also sent. The Petitioners also appeared before the Authorised Officer. Form I contemplates that the person interested is at liberty to appear and adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his objection. Though Form I Notice was not served upon the Petitioners, the Petitioners filed objections before the Authorised Officers. There is substantial compliance of the procedure for conducting Enquiry by the Special Tahsildar. 8. Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act contemplates that the Authorized Officer shall make Report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause shown for the decision of the District Collector. Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act further contemplates that the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit after considering such Report. 8. Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act contemplates that the Authorized Officer shall make Report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause shown for the decision of the District Collector. Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act further contemplates that the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit after considering such Report. In the present case, the officer Authorized by the District Collector viz., Special Officer, Adi Dravida Welfare has submitted his Report to the Collector. As contemplated under Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act, the District Collector should consider such Report and pass orders as he may deem fit. Only upon such consideration the Collector must arrive at decision whether to acquire the lands as contemplated under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 9. In the present cases, we have to see whether the District Collector has discharged his function as stipulated under Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act. 10. Upholding the validity of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu and others ..Vs.. Ananthi Ammal and others (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2114), the Supreme Court has elaborately considered the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 and observed as follows:- "...8. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 empowers the District Collector, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire some land for the purpose of an Harijan Welfare Scheme, to acquire that land by publishing in the District Gazette a Notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire it in pursuance of Section 4. Sub Section (2) of Section (2) of Section 4 obliges the District Collector or any Officer Authorized by him in this behalf to call upon the owner or any other person who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so Authorized, is interested in such land to show cause why it should not be acquired. Where the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2). Clause (a) of sub-section (3) requires him to pass orders on the cause so shown. Where the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2). Clause (a) of sub-section (3) requires him to pass orders on the cause so shown. Where an Officer Authorized by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), Clause (b) of Section 3 requires that Officer to report to the District Collector his recommendations on the cause so shown and the District Collector is required to pass such orders as he may deem fit after considering the report. Sub-section (2) of Section 4, therefore, obliges the acquiring authority to serve notice upon the land owner and other persons interested in the land to show cause why it should not be acquired. By reason of subsection (3) of Section 4, such cause has to be taken into account and orders passed in respect thereof. It is only thereafter that the acquiring authority can arrive at the satisfaction that it is necessary to acquire the land. The provisions of Section 4 therefore, substantially encapsulate the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the only major difference being that, under the said Act, it is the District Collector and not the State Government who must be satisfied that the land is required to be acquired. It does not appear to us that this is a provision which is unreasonable or arbitrary..." (Emphasis added) 11. In the decision reported in R. Pari ..Vs.. The Special Tahsildar ( 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 ), a Full Bench of this Court has elaborately considered the scope of Section 4 of the Act. The following three questions were referred to the Full Bench for determination:- Is it necessary for the Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar? Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not? Should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the owner? .12. Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not? Should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the owner? .12. Answering the second question – Whether the Owner is entitled to a copy of the Report of the Special Tahsildar, the Full Bench has held thus:- .".....So far as Question No.2 is concerned, since it is construed by us that it is necessary for the Collector to give opportunity to the owner to file further representation on the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer, such copy of the report/ recommendation is required to be furnished. We also add that in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 the owner would be entitled to copy of the report of the authorised officer..." .13. Referring to various decisions, the Full Bench concluded as under:- ."...The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/ recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is also necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition. The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate decision on the basis of the report / recommendation made by the authorised officer..." .14. By a careful perusal of the file, this Court finds that the copy of the Report/Recommendations of the Authorised Officer was not furnished to the Petitioners. By a careful perusal of the file, this Court finds that the copy of the Report/Recommendations of the Authorised Officer was not furnished to the Petitioners. The file also does not disclose consideration of the objections of the Petitioner by the District Collector and any reasoned decision by the Collector. After merely extracting the Report of the Special Tahsildar, it is only stated that the objections raised by the land owners have no substance. There is no considered view by the District Collector with reference to the Report or the objections raised by the Petitioners. The consideration must be stated by the Collector himself in the order. Only on the basis of reasonings impugned in the order, the conclusion can be justified especially when such orders are subject to judicial review. Hardly, there are any reasonings showing that the District Collector has applied his mind and discharged his functions as stipulated under Sec.4 (3)(b) of the Act. .15. Laying emphasis upon the need for considered reasonings as to why Collector is rejecting the objections, so that the land owner may have satisfaction that his objections have been considered, in the decision reported in The District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District and Another ..Vs.. Manickam ( 2005 (2) L.W. 199 ), M. KATJU, C.J., as his Lordship then was, speaking for the Bench has observed:- ."...8. In the present case, it appears that the order of the District Collector was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind by merely filling up a cyclostyled form. We cannot approve of such kind of orders. It may be that the Special Tahsildar, who was authorised by the District Collector, considered the objections of the land owners, but in our opinion, the District Collector must also consider those objections and apply his own mind to those objections, as he has been held in the Wednesbury case. Though we agree with the learned Special Government Pleader that if opportunity of hearing has been given by the person authorised by the District Collector under Section 4(2) of the Act (in this case the Special Tahsildar) it is not necessary for the District Collector to give a second opportunity of hearing, yet in our opinion the District Collector must certainly apply his own mind to the objections made by the land owner to the acquisition as they affect his very valuable rights. The Collector need not write an elaborate order like a Judgment of a Court of Law while rejecting the objections of the land owner, but he must at least in brief mention the reasons why he is rejecting the objections so that the land owner may have the satisfaction that his objections have been considered, and this Court also may be satisfied that the District Collector had applied his mind to such objections..." .16. As stated earlier, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the District Collector has applied to the objections raised by the Petitioners. The Petitioners have stated that their lands are wet lands and there are other dry lands are available. .There is no reasoning recorded by the District Collector for rejecting those objections raised by the Petitioners. 17. It is pertinent to note that even after Notification, objections raised by Aiyubkhan were considered and his lands were excluded. Consequently, the said Aiyubkhan has not pressed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7109 of 1999. It is not discernible from the records what was the objection raised by Aiyubkhan and the grounds on which his lands were excluded from acquisition. The question also arises why the same yardstick was not applied to the Petitioners. 18. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, the Impugned Notification No.10-A in Villupuram District Gazettee dated 12.03.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Act and Form I Notice are quashed. However, the order in these writ petitions would not be an impediment for proceeding with the matter afresh if the necessity still continues. No costs.