Judgment :- (W.A.Nos.2050 & 2051 of 2001 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 11. 2000 made in W.P.Nos.3356 and 3766 of 1996. W.A.No.726 of 2005 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.01.2003 made in W.P.No.4045 of 1997.) D. Murugesan, J. These writ appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978). The challenge in these writ appeals is not res integra. The grievance of the appellants is that after the notification under Section 4(2), enquiries were conducted by the Special Tahsildars (ADW) concerned and the reports were submitted recommending the acquisition. Based on those reports, the District Collectors concerned have directed the notifications acquiring the land under Section 4(1) of the State Act. 2. The bone of contention in all these writ appeals is that neither the reports of the Special Tahsildars were furnished to the appellants nor any enquiry was conducted. Hence the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 3. The said issue came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in R.Pari v. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Thevar District and another 2007 (2) MLJ 706 , and the Full Bench has held in paragraphs 37 & 43 as follows:- "37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the landowner to make a further representation to the District Collector does not mean that in every case, where such report has not been furnished, the ultimate order passed by the District Collector deciding to acquire the land is automatically vitiated. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the Court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the report and affording further opportunity to the landowner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the Authorised Officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the landowner and has not been considered by the Authorised Officer, the landowner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the landowner and has not been considered by the Authorised Officer, the landowner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the Authorised Officer has considered the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendation, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished and no further opportunity is given to the landowner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the landowner, have been ignored by the Authorised Officer, it may be reasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case. 43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusions are as follows: 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 not 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 landowner 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 landowner 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." 4. In view of the above order of the Full Bench, whenever the District Collector himself conducts the enquiry, he need not furnish the copy of the report to the landowner and call for objections, but he has to give the reasons for rejecting the objections made on behalf of the landowner. In the event the District Collector delegates his power to the Authorised Officer, namely, the Special Tahsildar, to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report, the Special Tahsildar is mandated to give opportunity to the land owner to make his objection and he shall on consideration of the objection forward the report with his remarks on the objection to the District Collector. The District Collector shall furnish a copy of the report to the land owner. 5. However, merely because the report of the Authorised Officer is not furnished, that by itself will not be a ground to interfere in the acquisition proceedings unless the land owners show prejudice. 6. Keeping the above in mind, whether the land owners/appellants in this case are prejudiced by non-furnishing of the report should be considered. The appellant in W.A.No.2050 of 2001 has filed her objections stating that she is a downtrodden and is the owner of the only land which is being acquired. She has four children and since she has no other land, she will be seriously prejudiced. The appellant in W.A.No.2051 of 2001 has filed her objections stating that she is a landless poor and she is holding only 20 cents of land and she has no other land. The appellant in W.A.No.726 of 2005 has filed his objection stating that he has availed loan from State Bank of India, Karikalampakkam for raising sugarcane crops in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired and he has to repay approximately a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. If the land is acquired, he will be put to financial hardship in repayment of the said loan in one lumpsum and the said objection has not been considered. 7. We have perused the reports of the Special Tahsildars and there are absolutely no consideration and finding on the above objections with supporting materials. If the land is acquired, he will be put to financial hardship in repayment of the said loan in one lumpsum and the said objection has not been considered. 7. We have perused the reports of the Special Tahsildars and there are absolutely no consideration and finding on the above objections with supporting materials. In fact the Special Tahsildar has made a reference to the statement of one Gopal Reddy representing the appellants in W.A.Nos.2050 & 2051 of 2001 to the effect that there are other lands available and the business is also run by the family members. However, we do not find any materials to support the said statement and the Special Tahsildar in a mechanical way had rejected the objections made by the appellants. In these circumstances, unless the copies of the report are furnished, the appellants will not be in a position to know whether their objections are considered or not so as to make their further objection to the District Collector for his consideration. Hence, on the facts of this case, we find that the landowners are certainly prejudiced by the non-furnishing of the reports. 8. There is no dispute that in all these writ appeals, the reports of the Special Tahsildars concerned were not furnished to the appellants/land owners. In view of our finding that failure to furnish the copies of the report would cause prejudice to the landowners and the non-furnishing of the reports would certainly deprive the valuable rights of the land owners to make their objections to the acquisition proceedings, the failure on the part of the respondents to furnish the copies of the reports of the Special Tahsildars concerned will vitiate the acquisition proceedings consequently on the facts of this case. Accordingly, the acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the State Act are quashed and the writ appeals are allowed. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law from the stage the defect had crept in. Consequently, W.A.M.P.No.1397 of 2005 is closed. No costs.