Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5298 (MAD)

Palaniswamy v. The District Collector, Salem

2010-12-02

P.JYOTHIMANI

body2010
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the third respondent. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as "Act"). 3. Even though other grounds have been raised to the effect that the purpose for which the land of the petitioners sought to be acquired viz., for the purpose of giving approach road to reach Adi Dravidas Colony, the colony itself has been shifted towards the main road, therefore, the approach road is not required. 4. A reference to order passed under Section 4(1) of the Act, as it is seen in the impugned notification issued shows that it is subject to the satisfaction of the Government. The said order under Section 4(1) of the Act has been passed by the first respondent on 01.01.2004. The relevant portion of the notification is as follows:- " Whereas, it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the lands specified in the schedule below and situated in the following Villages, Taluks, Salem District are needed for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme to wit, notice to that effect is hereby given to all to whom it may concern in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978). " 5. Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 reads as follows:- " 4. " 5. Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 reads as follows:- " 4. Power to acquire land – (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that, for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this Section." Hence, it is clearly specified in the Act that if the District Collector is satisfied that the lands are required for the Harijan Welfare Scheme, and if it is necessary to acquire such lands, he may public notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and this has been construed by this Court in many occasions to the effect that the District Collector has to independently apply his mind for the purpose of passing orders under Section 4(1) of the Act. 6. I had an occasion to consider the said issue in V.Kanna and another Vs. District Collector and Another reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 745 , wherein, by following the earlier Full Bench judgment in Sharp Tools Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1460 : 2006 (4) CTC 785 , it was held as follows:- "8. Applying the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in respect of the Central Act to the present case which relates to Act 31 of 1978, there is no difficulty to conclude that Form II prescribed under the Rules stating as if "it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu has no meaning read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules and Section 4(1) of Act 31/1978. The concerned authorities must take steps to amend the Form II. Therefore, the contention of the respondents as if the respondents have followed only the Form prescribed under the Rule does not save the acquisition proceeding inasmuch as the District Collector, who is the authority to satisfy himself for the purpose of acquisition, has failed to apply his mind. " 7. Therefore, the contention of the respondents as if the respondents have followed only the Form prescribed under the Rule does not save the acquisition proceeding inasmuch as the District Collector, who is the authority to satisfy himself for the purpose of acquisition, has failed to apply his mind. " 7. In view of the above decision, only on the ground that the order has been passed not to the satisfaction of the District Collector, the impugned notification is set aside, however, with liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed further and the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as per the Act. 8. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.