Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in M1/1721/98 dated 14.12.2000 on the file of the second respondent published in No.20, Villupuram District Gazette dated 1.3.2001 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978, and quash the same relating to lands in R.S.No.63/1A, 63/1C2 and 64/1, of Ottai Village, Vannur Taluk, Villupuram District, of total extent 6.39 Acres concerned. 2. Heard Mrs.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The first plea taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the District Collector alone is the competent authority to satisfy himself with the acquisition of land, whereas in this case Notification has been issued stating that the Government is intending to acquire the land under the Act and therefore, the Notification is bad. The second and the main plea taken by the petitioners is that after the enquiry by the authorised authority, a report has been submitted to the District Collector for consideration and that report has not been furnished to the petitioners, thereby prejudice is caused and consequently the acquisition proceedings have to be set aside. On the above plea, the writ petition is canvassed. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed touching upon the factual aspects of the case. The prejudice caused by acquisition alone has been dealt with by the Special Tahsildar who has filed the counter-affidavit. On the legal plea that the copy of the report/remarks of the authorised officer has not been furnished to the land owner, there is no specific denial by the Special Tahsildar. The court on various occasions permitted the Department to furnish records (i.e.) on 22.7.2011, 26.8.2011, 9.9.2011, 23.9.2011, 14.10.2011, 18.11.2011 and 10.12.2011. In spite of the specific adjournments, the records have not been produced before this Court. It is, therefore, to be presumed that the respondents have no records to produce in support of their case. 5. The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Pari - v. - The Special Tasildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai reported in 2006(4) CTC 609 wherein the Full Bench of this Court held in paras 42 and 43 as follows:- “42. 5. The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.Pari - v. - The Special Tasildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai reported in 2006(4) CTC 609 wherein the Full Bench of this Court held in paras 42 and 43 as follows:- “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 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. 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. 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 land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District Collector is expected to reflect the reason, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is non 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.” 6. The fact that the copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer has not been given to the owners of the land, the petitioners herein, so as to submit their objection to the District Collector vitiates the proceedings in terms of the Full Bench decision as above. The counter-affidavit refers to the various objections raised by the petitioners and is countered. This could have been considered by the District Collector, if an opportunity had been given by furnishing the report. The failure to give them opportunity at the stage of consideration by the Collector justifies the plea of prejudice. The non furnishing of the report/remarks of the authorised officer to the land owners, the petitioners herein, vitiate the proceedings in view of the Full Bench decision. 7. In view of the above, the Notification under challenge so far as it relates to the petitioners land is concerned is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.