Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore dated 10.03.1998 whereby, the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars of Kaikaatti Puthur Post. 2. The factual matrix as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as under: - .(a) The property which is the subject matter of acquisition originally belonged to the father of the petitioners by name Marrappa Gounder, a renowned freedom fighter who later functioned as Member of Legislative Assembly during the period 1957 to 1967. The said Marrappa Gounder donated several items of property for various beneficial schemes in the area and especially for the betterment of the downtrodden people, as well as to improve educational facilities in the area. After the death of the said Marrappa Gounder, the property devolved on the petitioners, being the legal heirs. .(b) While so, the petitioners received a notice from the second Respondent dated 01.02.1996 under Sec.4(2) of Act 31 of 1978 proposing to acquire the land in S.No. 255/1 in Avinashi Village, having an extent of 21. 5 Hectares for the purpose of providing house sites to the house-less Adi Dravidars of Kaikatti Puthur Post, Avinashi and the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 20.02.1996. On receipt of the said notice, the second petitioner appeared before the second Respondent at his office and filed his statement of objection signed by the first petitioner. However, he was informed that the enquiry would take place on a later date and accordingly, after handing over the objection, the second petitioner left the office of the second Respondent. Nothing was heard in the matter of land acquisition subsequently. .(c) However, the petitioners received a subsequent notice dated 30.09.1997 under rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act in Form-I whereby it was informed that the Government proposes to acquire the land for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars and in the said notification, extent of land sought to be acquired was mentioned as 4.89 acres in S.No.255 and the enquiry was scheduled to be held on 110. 1997 at 10.00 a.m. and the petitioners were directed to submit their objections. The second petitioner appeared before the second respondent at 10.00 a.m. on 110. 1997 at 10.00 a.m. and the petitioners were directed to submit their objections. The second petitioner appeared before the second respondent at 10.00 a.m. on 110. 1997 but no enquiry was conducted. The second Respondent was informed that a statement of objection had already been filed in response to the earlier notice and the same might be considered and treated as objections to the present notice. However, nothing was heard thereafter. Finally, the petitioners came to know that the first respondent has issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act acquiring the land of the petitioners and aggrieved by the notice in Form-I dated 30.09.1997, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Subsequently. The prayer in the Writ Petition was amended and Additional grounds were raised as per W.M.P.No.19269/2000 to challenge the notification dated 10.03.1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Even though notice was ordered as early as on 30.10.1998, respondents have not filed counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. The matter was periodically adjourned for the purpose of filing counter affidavit as well as to produce the file. Even though time was taken by the learned Government Advocate under the pretext of getting instructions as well as to produce the award file, the fact remains that no counter affidavit has been filed so far and the respondent also failed to produce the award file for verification. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the objection submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the second Respondent before submitting his report to the first Respondent. The first Respondent has also mechanically accepted the proposal, without application of mind and the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act clearly shows that it was only on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Government that the District Collector issued the notification and as such, the very proceeding is liable to be quashed. 5. The Learned Government Advocate was not in a position to controvert the averments as found in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition on account of the failure of the respondents to file counter affidavit as well as to produce the file for the perusal of the learned Government Advocate so as to enable him to make his submissions before this Court. Therefore, the matter has to be decided on the basis of the materials available on record. .6. It was the case of the petitioners that though objections were filed by them against the proposed acquisition, originally initiated as per notice dated 01.02.1996, and in spite of the request made by the petitioners to treat the objection filed by them on 110. 1997 to be taken as objection for the subsequent proposal for acquisition, there is no material before this court to show as to whether the said objection was considered by the second Respondent and a report has been submitted to the first Respondent. The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act shows that the subjective satisfaction for the purpose of acquiring the property has been arrived at by the Government and the District Collector issued the notification on the basis of the said satisfaction of the Government. 7. Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 gives power to the District Collector to acquire the land for the purpose of any of the Harijan Welfare Schemes, in case the Collector was of the opinion that such acquisition was necessary. However before taking a decision to acquire the property, the Collector was required to issue notice to the person, who in the opinion of the District Collector got interest in the said property. The Collector was required to issue notice under Rule 3(1) giving fifteen days time to the interested parties to submit their objections. Such notice need not be issued by the Collector himself. In case notice has been issued by the Collector himself, he has to consider the objection submitted by the landowners in pursuance of such notice and only after satisfying himself about the necessity to acquire the land, that the notification under Section 4(1) could be issued by the Collector. In the event of the Collector delegating the function to an officer authorised by him and the notice under Rule 3(1) was issued by the said officer, the objection submitted by the parties interested in the land against such acquisition, has to be considered by the delegate and he should submit a report to the District Collector with his recommendation. In the event of the Collector delegating the function to an officer authorised by him and the notice under Rule 3(1) was issued by the said officer, the objection submitted by the parties interested in the land against such acquisition, has to be considered by the delegate and he should submit a report to the District Collector with his recommendation. Therefore in cases wherein enquiry notice under Rule 3(1) has been issued by the Collector, enquiry has to be conducted by the Collector and in case of proceedings issued by the delegate of the Collector, enquiry should be conducted by the said authority and a report to the said effect has to be submitted to the District Collector with the recommendations. However, in both the cases, the Collector has to apply his mind and only after satisfying himself that the property was required for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme, that the Collector was authorised to issue the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. .8. The procedure prescribed under Act 31 of 1978 is very stringent in as much as the safeguards available to a land owner in a proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not available in respect of acquisition under Act 31 of 1978. Since the reason for introducing the special enactment was for the purpose of early acquisition of property for the benefit of Harijans, the lengthy procedure contemplated under the Central Act has not been incorporated under the Special Act. Since the Harijan Welfare Scheme Act permits the District Collector to acquire the property, after resorting to a summary procedure contemplated under the Act, the provisions of the said Act has to be interpreted in a stringent manner. When the statute mandates that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in that manner. When the Collector was given the authority to consider the question of acquisition of the property, the satisfaction should be that of the Collector himself and the satisfaction arrived at by the Government cannot be a substitute for the satisfaction to be arrived at by the Collector. When the Collector was given the authority to consider the question of acquisition of the property, the satisfaction should be that of the Collector himself and the satisfaction arrived at by the Government cannot be a substitute for the satisfaction to be arrived at by the Collector. In the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it was found that the satisfaction has been arrived at by the Government and the Collector was acting only in accordance with the decision taken by the Government to acquire the land. Even though the District Collector can be termed to be a representative of the Government, but by no stretch of imagination, the Collector can be termed to be the Government. The legislature in their wisdom thought it fit to give power to a lower grade officer of the state administration and such conferment of power was granted for the specific purpose to conclude the land acquisition proceedings without waiting for the approval at various levels of the Government as done under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. There was no mention in the notification that opinion has been formed by the Collector to acquire the property on a careful consideration of the objections filed by the land owners/persons interested in the land, in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 4(2) of the Act and more particularly in the statutory format issued under Rule 3 (1) of Act 31 of the 1978. The satisfaction of the Government was immaterial in the case of such acquisition. In case the Collector has decided to drop the acquisition or to acquire the property, in either of these cases, the Government cannot direct the District Collector to exercise the power under Section 4(1) in a particular manner. The act gives a clear mandate to the Collector to decide about the necessity to acquire the land for the purpose of Adi dravidars. .10. The Apex Court in T.ASHOK PAI vs. C.I.T. BANGALORE (2007(8) SCALE 354), observed that it is a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law more strict construction thereof would be necessary. The act gives a clear mandate to the Collector to decide about the necessity to acquire the land for the purpose of Adi dravidars. .10. The Apex Court in T.ASHOK PAI vs. C.I.T. BANGALORE (2007(8) SCALE 354), observed that it is a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law more strict construction thereof would be necessary. The said principle has got relevance in the present case in as much as the provisions of Act 31 of 1978 and more particularly Section 4(1) and 4(2) are stringent provisions which permits the Collector to acquire the land on the basis of subjective satisfaction arrived at by him. 11. In the notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act 31/1978, satisfaction arrived at by the Government to acquire the property for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme was shown as the basis for initiating the proceedings. Though the impugned Order cannot be justified by supplementing reasons by way of counter affidavit, in a given case, it is possible for the Collector to produce the Award File in Court and demonstrate that it was his subjective satisfaction which culminated in issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. If there were sufficient materials in the award file to substantiate the contention of the Collector with regard to the subjective satisfaction arrived at by him, the notification under Section 4(1) would be perfectly valid notwithstanding the wording in the notification which would project as though the satisfaction was only of the Government in initiating the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the production of the award file assumes significance in land acquisition proceedings. .12. In Delhi Administrative v. Gurudeep Singh Uban ( 2000(7) SCC 296 ). While considering the question with regards to the necessity to record reasons in the case of a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994, the Apex Court observed thus: - .“No reasons or other facts need be mentioned in the Section 6 declaration on its face. If the satisfaction is challenged in the Court, the Government can show the record upon which the Government acted and justify the satisfaction expressed in the Section 6 declaration”. 13. If the satisfaction is challenged in the Court, the Government can show the record upon which the Government acted and justify the satisfaction expressed in the Section 6 declaration”. 13. Since the respondents have not filed counter affidavit and they have also failed to produce the award file, there is no material available before this Court to ascertain as to whether the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector. As indicated earlier, even though due opportunity was given to the learned Government Advocate to cause the production of the award file or to file counter affidavit to substantiate the averments in the notification, no such attempt was made and as such, the averments as found in the notification under Section 4(1) has to be taken at its face value which clearly shows that the subjective satisfaction was arrived at only by the Government. 14. The Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. ( 2005(7) Scale 386 ), while considering the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and more particularly Sec.5-A of the said Act, indicated the necessity to file counter in answer to the contentions raised against the land acquisition as well as the requirement of the production of award file before the court and observed thus: “20. ----- when a rule nisi was issued the State was required to produce the records and file a counter affidavit. If it did not file any counter affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held to have admitted the allegations made in the Writ Petition. 21. ------ 22. Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mind not only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the Report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefore, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property. It is in that situation production of records by the State is necessary.” 15. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefore, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property. It is in that situation production of records by the State is necessary.” 15. Therefore it is beyond any cavil that the satisfaction of the Collector is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings for acquisition under Act 31 of 1978 and failure on the part of the Collector to arrive at a subjective satisfaction with respect to the acquisition, vitiates the whole proceedings. The satisfaction arrived at by the Government cannot be a substitute for the satisfaction to be arrived at by the Collector. Hence, the impugned land acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the satisfaction arrived at by the Government does not satisfy the requirement of law and as such the same is Liable to be quashed. 16. In the result, the impugned proceeding dated 10.03.1998 is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. W.M.P.No.19269/2000 is allowed. It is open to the respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings in accordance with law.