Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 27 (MAD)

Palaniammal v. The District Collector & Another

2009-01-06

K.CHANDRU

body2009
Judgment :- Heard both sides and perused the records filed in this case as well as the original records circulated by the learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the acquisition of her land in Survey No.175/2D1 situated at Erumaipatty Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for short T.N.Act 31 of 1978), has filed the present writ petition. 3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 04. 1996. An interim order against dispossession of the lands from the petitioner was also granted. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 13. 2002 and was restored on 17. 2002. The original file was circulated to justify the acquisition of lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the beneficiaries, who admittedly belong to the Arundhadiyar Community of that village. 4. The second respondent being the prescribed authority initiated proposals for the acquisition of lands for the Harijan Welfare Scheme and the notice dated 010. 1995 under Section 4(2) was issued and served on the owner of the lands. An enquiry was conducted on 210. 1995. The land owner sent his objection by post. 5. The objections given by the land owners were considered by the authority concerned. He sent his proposal to the District Collector. The District Collector rejected the objections given by the land owners by his order dated 02. 1996. Thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) was published in the District Government Gazette on 02. 1996. An Award in Award No.15/95-96has been passed on 23. 1996 and the compensation amount has been deposited into the Sub-Court at Sankari. Possession was taken over by the second respondent on 15. 2002 after the dismissal of the writ petition for default. Pattas have also been given to the beneficiaries. 6. 1996. An Award in Award No.15/95-96has been passed on 23. 1996 and the compensation amount has been deposited into the Sub-Court at Sankari. Possession was taken over by the second respondent on 15. 2002 after the dismissal of the writ petition for default. Pattas have also been given to the beneficiaries. 6. The following contentions were raised by the petitioner:- (a) The District Collector did not apply his mind to the objections and he had not personally satisfied himself with the proposal; .(b) The notification published under Section 4(1) of the T.N.Act 31 of 1978 itself speaks only about the State Government being satisfied; .(c) No personal enquiry was conducted; .(d) The land that is sought to be acquired is the only land by which the petitioner is eking out her livelihood; .(e) The District Collector did not give the report of the Special Tahsildar; and (f)No notice was given to the petitioner but it was given to her husband who gave the land to her by way of a settlement. 7. Before the issues can be decided, it must be stated that this matter was filed at the time when a Full Bench of this Court was called upon to decide conflicting judgments of this Court on the procedure involved under T.N. Act 31 of 1978. P.K. Misra, J., speaking for the Full Bench rendered its opinion on 28. 2006. It has been since reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (R.Pari -vs- The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Devakottai and another). The Full Bench thereafter directed the individual Writ Petitions to be decided on their merits and in accordance with the direction of the Full Bench. Thus, this matter and the connected matters came to be grouped together and were posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice. 8. On the basis of the original records, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners name was not in the revenue records. But objections made on her behalf were considered. It is the District Collector who was satisfied about the need for land acquisition. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner have no substance. 9. Since the ruling of the Full Bench in R. Paris case (cited supra) is the guiding factor, it is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43:- 37. It is the District Collector who was satisfied about the need for land acquisition. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner have no substance. 9. Since the ruling of the Full Bench in R. Paris case (cited supra) is the guiding factor, it is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43:- 37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the land owner 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 land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the authorized officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the authorized officer, the land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the authorized 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 land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner, have been ignored by the authorized 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. 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. .. .. 42. However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat. The observation made by the Division Bench or the Single Judge regarding requirement to indicate reason while passing the order has to be understood in the context of non-application of mind. Even though in a given case, the order which is communicated to the land owner does not indicate any reason why the objection has been rejected, if the application of mind is reflected in the file even by way of notings and endorsements, the ultimate decision to acquire the land cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the order which is communicated to the land owner/objector does not contain any detailed reasons. The requirement is that the materials on record, that is to say the relevant file, should indicate application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and not passing of a formal reasoned order as is required in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The function obviously being administrative in nature, it is futile to expect furnishing of detailed reasons in the order which is communicated to the person. It is necessary to enter such caveat lest it may be construed that in every case, where the order of rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the rejection communicated to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the proceeding stands vitiated. Ultimately the Court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application of mind. Therefore, the brief reasons, which are contemplated, can be given either in the file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc. or even can be reflected in the order. Ultimately the Court is required to find out in each case whether there has been application of mind. Therefore, the brief reasons, which are contemplated, can be given either in the file in the shape of notings, endorsements, etc. or even can be reflected in the order. But mere non-reflection of reasons in the order communicated or in the notice published in the Gazette, would not be sufficient to hold that there has been non-application of mind and the question as to whether there has been application of mind or non-application is required to be considered on the basis of the return filed and the relevant file to be produced before the Court. 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 authorized 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 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 authorized officer." (Emphasis Added) 10. The other contention that the District Collector was not satisfied and it was the Governments satisfaction, it must be stated that the original file produced shows that there is no reference to any Governments intervention in this case. On the other hand, the District Collectors personal satisfaction is clearly reflected in the file. The Gazette Notification produced by the petitioner cannot be the basis for determination of the issue. On the other hand, the District Collectors personal satisfaction is clearly reflected in the file. The Gazette Notification produced by the petitioner cannot be the basis for determination of the issue. As directed by the Full Bench in R. Paris case, (cited supra), it is ultimately that the file must reflect the satisfaction of the Collector and the Court must be satisfied with the procedure adopted by the respondents (see the extracts reproduced in para 9). 11. The Supreme Court vide its decision in Delhi Administration -vs- Gurdip Singh Uban reported in (2000) 7 SCC 296 ), dealt with the question of recording reasons in case of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court in that decision in para 49, had observed as follows:- 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 Section 6 declaration". These observations will apply in its entirety to the case on hand. 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.