JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 24.3.1997 made in RC.W6/14580, approving the purchase by private negotiation of the lands measuring 3.20.0 hectares in Survey No.574/3 of Suriyur Village, Thiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and consequent purchase of the same by the first respondent under Sale Deed No1061/1997 dated 15.4.1997 registered as such in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruverambur, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and to declare the same as null and void and direct the first respondent to restore the said lands measuring 3.20.0 hectares to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit are as follows: (a) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 3.20.0 hectares of dry lands situate in S.F.No.574/3 of Suiryur Vilalge, Tiruchirappalli Taluk. The first respondent purchased the said land under the scheme of private negotiation from the 5th and 6th respondent, who are not the owners of the land, by way of sale deed dated 15.4.1997 registered in the office of the Sub – Registrar, Tiruverumber. Originally, the lands in question belongs to the petitioner's father, who purchased the same by way of sale deed registered as document No.977/1961. The second and third respondents failed to verify the title of the land properly and wrongly purchased the lands in question from 5th and 6th respondent. (b) The village Suriyur was a whole Inam Estate. The Inam Tennure was abolished as per the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963. Thereafter, the survey and settlement operations were taken up and after inspection, the settlement Inspector had given a report in Exs.C1 and C2 and the same would prove that the lands belongs to the petitioner's father. (c) Even prior to the settlement operations, the petitioner's father's name was ordered to be included in the Rent Reduction Chitta as per the order dated 27.11.1996. Subsequent to the settlement operations, the scheme of updating the Registry (for short U.D.R. scheme)was taken up in the village in the year 1985 as per G.O.Misc.No.869 C.T. &R.3. Department, dated 30.9.1985. (c) Even prior to the settlement operations, the petitioner's father's name was ordered to be included in the Rent Reduction Chitta as per the order dated 27.11.1996. Subsequent to the settlement operations, the scheme of updating the Registry (for short U.D.R. scheme)was taken up in the village in the year 1985 as per G.O.Misc.No.869 C.T. &R.3. Department, dated 30.9.1985. Even while implementing the above scheme, the petitioner's father was granted a separate patta of the lands comprised in S.F.No.574/3 to the extent of 8.45.0 hectare as per order dated 07.3.1977 and "Patta Pass Book" dated 29.8.1977 was issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruchy. The petitioner's father had paid kist for the lands also (d) While so, the petitioner's father was served with notice under Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Surey and Boundaries Act, 1923, calling for objections if any, to register patta for the lands in question in S.F.No.574/3 jointly in the name of the petitioner's father and one Shyam Sunder. The petitioner sent objections dated 02.9.1988 stating that no portion of the land in the said survey was sold to Shyam Sundar. After due enquiry, separate patta was issued to the father of the petitioner by deleting the name of the said Shyam Sunder. (e) After the death of the petitioner's father, the partition took place between the family members of the petitioner and thereafter, when the petitioner visited the said land, he came to know that the land was acquired by the Government. When the petitioner approached the office of the second respondent, he was informed that the lands in question have been purchased by the first respondent on behalf of the Government from the 5th and 6th respondents, who are not at all owners. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the alleged sale deed No.1061 of 1997 dated 15.4.1997 and on receipt of the same, he came to know that the first respondent purchased the same solely relying on the "Patta Pass Book" bearing No.490612 issued by the fourth respondent without further insisting other documents to trace the original owner of the land. When the petitioner verified the said patta Pass Book, he came to know that the same was bogus and not signed by the Village Administrative Officer of the village concerned. Therefore , the petitioner is before this Court. 3. When the petitioner verified the said patta Pass Book, he came to know that the same was bogus and not signed by the Village Administrative Officer of the village concerned. Therefore , the petitioner is before this Court. 3. A counter has been filed by the third respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Special Tahsildar, Tiruchy has sent proposals to be District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tiruchy for acquiring 3.20.0 Hectares in S.F.No.574/3 of Sooriyur Village of Tiruchirappalli Taluk, which were owned by Tvl. A.Sahuld Hameed and A.Natharsha under private negotiation in his letter dated 21.3.1997. On verification and scrutiny, the Collector of Perumpidugu Muthariar District has sanctioned compensation amount of Rs.2,33,366/-. Further, the documents were also registered on 16.4.1997. The lay out allotting 250 plots and beneficiaries list were also approved by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Tiruchirappalli on 10.6.1997. Pattas have also been issued to the beneficiaries. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that only on verifying the village Accounts maintained by the Revenue Department alone, the respondents 1 to 3 have purchased the land. The Village accounts i.e. "A" register, Adangal, the names of the present seller alone is available. It is also stated that as per the U.D.R patta, the names of the present sellers, i.e. Sahul Hameed and A.Natharsha are alone available in Patta No.1354. It is stated that the sellers have given statement before the Special Tahsildar on 21.3.1997 stating that there is no encumbrance in the suit land and if any encumbrance arise, they will settle the same from their own cost. Thus, the counter prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question has been purchased by the father of the petitioner and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that patta has been granted in favour of the petitioner and the encumbrance certificate also shows the name of the father of the petitioner but without verifying all the documents, the first respondent with the connivance of other officials has created bogus patta Pass Book and purchased the property on behalf of the Government. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition has to be allowed. 6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition has to be allowed. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the land in question has been purchased by way of private negotiation as per G.O.Ms.No.322/97 dated 21.3.1997. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that after following the due process, the lands have been purchased in order to provide house sites to the Adi dravidar community. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader prays that the writ petition has to be dismissed. 7. Since the Government has purchased the property by paying exchequer amount from the respondents 5 and 6 whereas the petitioner has come forward with this petition claiming himself as land owner by showing patta, sale deed and other documents, in order to know more information about the factual and legal aspects, this Court, by order dated 17.4.2013, appointed Mr. R.Subramanian, advocate, as Amicus curiae to assist the Court. Accordingly, entire copy of the documents including typed set of papers and the counter affidavit have been furnished to him. 8. Today, when the matter was taken up, Mr. R.Subramanian, Amicus Curiae contended that as per the provisions contemplated in the Act, there is no power to the Collector for the alleged private negotiation. He further contended that even proper procedure has not been followed in the said private negotiation. He also contended that the property in question has not been purchased by the competent person as the procedures contemplated under the Act. According to him, the original title of the land in question has not been traced while purchasing the same by spending exchequer amount. The Government purchased the land in question only on the basis of the alleged patta pass book without proper verification of the original title. 9. Heard the rival submissions made by either side and perused the entire typed set of papers and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 10. On a careful perusal of the type set produced before this Court, it is seen that the first respondent has purchased the property in question only on the basis of the alleged patta Pass Book. It is very surprising to note that how such transaction has been completed that too, by the Government by paying exchequer amount. Even a prudent man will not be party for such type of transactions. It is very surprising to note that how such transaction has been completed that too, by the Government by paying exchequer amount. Even a prudent man will not be party for such type of transactions. It is very clear that the purchase has been completed with the help of the Government Officials i.e. from "A" to "Z". Further, the Special Tahsildar, who is not a competent person, has filed the vague counter and the reading of the same would give suspicion over disputed purchase made by the Government officials. 11. Now the points to be decided by this Court is as to whether the (1) private negotiation made by the Collector concerned is permitted under law and (2) the land in question belongs to the petitioner or not. (3) Before purchase the property on behalf of the Government any minimum effort has been taken by the officials in the Land Acquisition Tahsildar to then District Collector in whose name the purchase has been effected. 12. From the perusal of the Harijan Welfare Act, it is very clear that there is no such provision in the Act for private negotiation. As per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, the Collector alone is the competent person to acquire the land, that too, by following due process of law. It is need less to say that before proceeding with the acquisition, the Collector has to give notice to the interested persons calling them to appear before him and after personal hearing, he has to take decision independently. But in the present case, the provision of Section 4 of the Act has been completely violated and it is not known under what authority, the Collector has purchased the land in question without giving any proper notice to the land owner and without hearing the owner of the property. 13. The Government at the larger interest on the welfare of the Harijans intend to provide at least shelter for the Harijans, by the enactment and the validity of the Act has already been questioned and ultimately the Apex Court of India has validated the Act. As per this Act the lands has to be acquired for providing shelter to the Harijans. Whereas in this case, the lands have been purchased by the Collector Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, by private negotiations. As per this Act the lands has to be acquired for providing shelter to the Harijans. Whereas in this case, the lands have been purchased by the Collector Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, by private negotiations. To overcome the sufferings of the needy people, the State thought it fit at least to provide shelter for the poor Harijans. Keeping this in mind, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.146 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 14.8.1995 and as per the said G.O. they have gone into private negotiations to purchase the lands to provide shelter for Harijans. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 and The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, have alone permitted the authorities concerned to purchase the lands under private negotiations, which runs as follows: Section 19(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 runs as hereunder:- "19(2) Where the amount has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such amount shall be paid. Provided that no amount exceeding such amount as the Government may, by general or special order, specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the previous approval of the Government or such officer as the Government may appoint in this behalf. " Section 7(2) and 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 runs as hereunder:- "7(2) Where the amount has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such amount shall be paid. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such amount shall be paid. Provided that no amount exceeding such amount as the Government may, by general order, specify, to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the previous approval of the Government or such officer as the Government may appoint in this behalf. " 14. When this Court expresses the above opinion, it was informed by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the land in question has been purchased by the Collector as per the Government Order. He has also relied on the G.O.No.146, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.8.1995. In the said G.O it is stated as follows:- "6. As more lands are now required for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes and in order to speed up the process and to achieve the target indicated in para 2 above the Government have now, after a review of the working of the procedure regarding purchase of lands through negotiations, decided to delegate powers to the District Collectors and the Commissioner for Land Administration for purchase of lands through private negotiation for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes. 7. The Government accordingly direct that the existing Committee under the Chairman of the District Collector as detailed below shall continue to function: i) District Collector .. .. CHAIRMAN ii) District Revenue Officer .. MEMBER iii) Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector .. MEMBER iv) District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer. .. CONVENOR. 8. The Government further directs that a State Level Committee shall also be constituted as detailed below:-i) Commissioner of Land Administration. .. CHAIRMAN ii) Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare .. MEMBER iii) Joint Commissioner (Land) o/o Commissioner of Land Administration. .. MEMBER- SECRETARY 9. The Government order that: (i) The District Committee headed by the District Collector shall have powers to finalise the purchase of lands through negotiations with land owner upto an individual (proposal) total cost of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs only) subject to the condition that the value of land per acre/hectare should not exceed 150% of the guideline value or the market value whichever is lower. Based on the recommendations of the District Committee, the District Collector shall issue final orders for the purchase of land from the private land owner. (ii) Where the total cost in any individual proposal exceeds Rs.20 lakhs, but the per acre/hectare value does not exceed 150% of the guideline value or the market value whichever is lower, the State Level Committee headed by the Commissioner of Land Administration shall consider the proposal of the District level Committee to be sent by the District Collector and approve the purchase of lands through private negotiations and the Commissioner of Land Administration shall issue the order of purchase, based on the decision of the committee. (iii) in special cases where the lands are absolutely essential, and where the value per acre/hectare exceeds 150% of the guideline value/market value irrespective of the total cost in each individual proposal, Government shall approve the purchase taking into account the proposal of the District Collector and the recommendation thereon of the Commissioner of Land Administration." 15. Once the Act contemplates certain procedure for acquisition, it is need less to say that the same is binding on the authority before proceeding with the acquisition. If there is any deviation in the said process, definitely, the same should be interfered with by the Court. Here, in this case, of course, the authority failed to follow the procedures contemplated under the Act. As already stated the G.O. permits the District Collector to go for the private negotiation as stated by the Government is permissible. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and no force in his arguments. Now it is represented that the said G.O.Ms.No.146, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.8.1995 has been withdrawn by the Government. 16. The second point for consideration as to whether the land in question belongs to the petitioner or not has to be seen, admittedly, the petitioner has produced the entire documents including the sale deed and the patta to show that the land belongs to him. Undoubtedly, all the documents carry the name of the father of the petitioner. 17. It appears, originally the land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner in the year 1961 by way of registered document No.977/61 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruchirappalli. Undoubtedly, all the documents carry the name of the father of the petitioner. 17. It appears, originally the land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner in the year 1961 by way of registered document No.977/61 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruchirappalli. It is also seen that the Inam tenure was abolished as per the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963. Thereafter, the survey and settlement operations were taken up. The old Survey No.72 correlates to new S.F.No.574/3. The report of the settlement inspector also correlates new S.F.NO. 574/3 and the same will show that the land in question belongs to the petitioner's father. The certificate dated 15.3.1977 issued by the then Village Karnam also shows that the petitioner's father was the owner of the land in S.F.No.574/3. On the basis of the certificate, while implementing the U.D.R. scheme, petitioner's father was granted separate patta for the lands comprised in S.F.No.574/3. Based on the same, the patta pass book dated 29.8.1977 was also issued by the Tahsildar, Trichy. The petitioner also paid the kist for the land in question, which is evident from the kist receipt produced by the petitioner upto 1993. 18. From the perusal of the Proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, (S.E), Tiruchirappalli, dated 30.03.1976 at page No.33 of the type set, it is seen that as per the settlement proceedings dated 12.9.1969 it has been remitted back and after remand, about the lands in NS 418/1 and 574/1 allotted to the petitioner's father and thereafter, the matter has been remitted back again to the Settlement Officer and thereafter, it was taken up on 30.03.1976. In paragraph 9 it has been mentioned that N.S.Noi.574/3, 574/1, 648 and 630/1, patta has been issued as per those lands and later on kist has been paid by Ahmed Basha, father of the petitioner from 20.6.1976 and he has also produced copy of patta passbook No.1371 issued on 30.5.1977 in favour of his father and thereafter also kist has been paid upto 1984 and patta No.574/3 also carries the name of petitioner's father. Later on he has presented the petition dated 2.9.1988 to the Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli, for deletion of wrong inclusion of the name of Shyam Sundar in patta No.1354 and thereafter it also has been enquired and orders have been passed on 26.3.1989 deleting the name of Syam Sundar in Patta No.1354 and a copy of the order has been marked to the petitioner's father. Subsequently also kist has been paid upto 1993. Under such circumstances, the 5th Respondent's name has been find place at the first time only in the Patta No.1354 and the patta also has been issued without any date. 19. Under such circumstances, it is not known how Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the then Collector of the Tiruchirappalli District, purchased the property on behalf of the Government by way of sale deed dated 16.4.1997 from the respondents 5 and 6, who are not the real owners. The relevant portion of the sale deed dated 16.4.1997 runs as follows:- “Tamil” The vendor of the sale have not traced out the original source as to how he has got the property. The vendor has not explained as to how he has derived title to the property and it is pertinent to note that at the time of purchase of property even a prudent man would have go through for purchase without knowing the original ownership of the property and without title deeds of the vendor to ascertain as to how the vendor has got title to the property and how he has been in possession and enjoyment and what is the source of the title, the District Collector has purchased the property. As a District Collector, once he is purchasing the property on behalf of the Government, as a prudent man, he has to look into the above aspects, but he has failed to do so. If he is an innocent prudent man, and he is in no way concerned with the private land racket, immediately he could have looked into those aspects, since the value of the property as on the date of purchase viz., 16.4.1997, is Rs.2,33,366/-. A reading of the entire sale deed it is seen that merely on the basis of the patta passbook in the name of the vendor-third party, the Collector has purchased the property on behalf of the Government. A reading of the entire sale deed it is seen that merely on the basis of the patta passbook in the name of the vendor-third party, the Collector has purchased the property on behalf of the Government. The patta has been issued on 28.3.1997 in favour of the 5th Respondent in Patta No.1354 who is the third party in the eve of the sale. 20. As already stated above, from the typed set it is seen that patta has been issued in the name of S.N. Ahamed Basha, father of the present writ petitioner in Pata No.1371 dated 29.08.1977. E.C. from the year 01.01.1961 to 03.05.1970 in favour of the petitioner has been issued by the Sub-Registrar, District Registrar's Officer, Tiruchirapalli in which at Column 6 the name of Ahamed Basha, the father of the petitioner has been shown as purchaser from the names of the vendors mentioned in Column No.5. Except the said entry no other entry has been made in the said E.C. issued. In the E.C. issued by the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvermbur, on 8.4.2013 in favour of the petitioner, for a period from 04.05.1970 to 31.12.1986 it has been mentioned that there is no Encumbrance. Even if the Collector wanted to purchase the property only on the basis of the patta passbook issued in the name of the 5th respondent/vendor on 21.3.1997 in Patta No.1354, patta must have been transferred from the original owner who is the father of the petitioner. The said aspect has not been mentioned in the patta passbook. The Encumbrance Certificate dated 12.3.1997 issued by Sub-Registrar, Thiruverumbur, in favour of the 5th respondent for the period from 1.1.1978 to 5.3.1997 at Column No.5 the name of the Vendor has been mentioned as Mani G.S. and at Column No.6 the name of the purchasers has been mentioned as Abdul Rasak (Guardian), Sakul Hameed, Nathar Sha, Thakkathir, Kamal Nazir and Ibrahim also does not bear any transaction. In the Encumbrance Certificate dated 12.3.1997, also very curious enough it has been written that: “Tamil” General exception has been given. While issuing the Encumbrance Certificate by the Registering Authority that too to the Sub-Registrar of documents, without looking at the records, by inserting these conditions safeguarding his interest merely issued Encumbrance Certificate by saying that there is 'No Encumbrance'. In the Encumbrance Certificate dated 12.3.1997, also very curious enough it has been written that: “Tamil” General exception has been given. While issuing the Encumbrance Certificate by the Registering Authority that too to the Sub-Registrar of documents, without looking at the records, by inserting these conditions safeguarding his interest merely issued Encumbrance Certificate by saying that there is 'No Encumbrance'. As per the exceptional clause the Registering Authority can put that condition to a third party and certainly not for the District Collector who has purchased the land on behalf of the Government for providing shelter to the Harijans at the cost of the Government Exchequer. Therefore, Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Registering Authority also is not correct one. When once the Registering Authority on a particular date issued a Certificate to the petitioner by mentioning the date of sale deed in the name of the writ petitioner, how they can issue Encumbrance Certificate to the Collector by saying Encumbrance Column in a blank manner. Therefore, the official concerned in the Registering Authority and moreover, the issuing authority also make them responsible. Unless they are not interested in the fictitious transaction, they ought not to have been issued such a certificate by imposing those conditions. 21. It is pertinent to point out that the said property in question has been purchased by the then Collector with the connivance of all the officials right from Tahsildar, as per G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 14.8.1995, without properly verifying the original title. It is common knowledge to say that before purchasing the property it is the duty of the purchaser to verify the original title of the vendor from whom he has purchased the property. In this case, the Collector by paying exchequer amount has purchased the property without tracing the original title and any legal opinion for the same. Therefore, it is very clear the Officials, from "A" to "Z" including the District head and their officer concerned, have purchased the property in question who is not the owner of the property. Now the sale deed is no value and the document has been examined by the person who is not having ownership of the land from whom the Respondents 1 to 3 purchased the property at the cost of the exchequer. 22. Even in the counter filed by the Special Tahsildar, the respondents have never denied the title of the petitioner. Now the sale deed is no value and the document has been examined by the person who is not having ownership of the land from whom the Respondents 1 to 3 purchased the property at the cost of the exchequer. 22. Even in the counter filed by the Special Tahsildar, the respondents have never denied the title of the petitioner. They would contend that on the date of sale Patta and Adangal was standing in the name of the vendor. But they have not mentioned on what date onwards the property is in possession of the 5th Respondent and how he became the owner of the property, till not proved. At the time of purchase they have not even receive Xerox copy of sale deed from the vendor or certified copy of sale deed from the Registrar office to trace the ownership of the land. Therefore the only conclusion one can arrive is that the property and possession of the land in question was not in the name and hands of the 5th respondent. The same itself would prove that top most officials with the connivance of the other officials have created the document and cheated the Government. The petitioner who is an unfortunate and remidiless person has filed this writ petition before this Court in the year 2002. 23. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 02.01.2002 granted interim injunction. However, the counter has been filed on 28.3.2003 by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, by name, Mr. P.Ramalingam. The respondents have not chosen to take action to set right the matter for the past 11 years and even after filing the counter by the Special Tahsildar, there is no indication to show that he has informed about the same to his superiors. The Officials concerned have not chosen to take any steps to set right the matter or verify about the real owner of the property and till now the Respondents 1 to 3 have not produced any document viz., Adangal, patta transfer and at the time of the transferring of patta any notice has been given to the petitioner and on what date it has been transferred. All these things have not been proved by producing the documents. The concerned file also not produced before this Court for verifying those aspects. All these things have not been proved by producing the documents. The concerned file also not produced before this Court for verifying those aspects. Right from the beginning the Respondent is showing lethargic even though the matter has been adjourned from time to time i.e. 4.3.2013, 21.3.2013, 28.3.2013, 3.4.2013, 4.4.2013, 12.4.2013, 17.4.2013 and finally on 18.4.2013. Therefore, this Court expresses dissatisfaction over the administration of the concerned officials, including the then District head. 24. As I have already pointed out the Government at the interest of the noble cause, wanted to acquire the land by private negotiation, and allot the same for the Harijans. But the authorities without taking due care merely on the basis of the Patta which is a name sake document purchased the land from the person who is not having ownership of the land. Therefore, I am of the view that the value of Rs.2,33,366/- spent by the Government for the purchase of 4.00 acres of land even in the year 1997, would now comes to the value of several crores. Further, it was informed to this Court that the then District Collector is now holding the post of Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, and he will be the head of the police officials. Therefore, if the investigation is entrusted to any Investigating Agency within the State, they will not be any proper investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that the investigation of the matter has to be entrusted to any one of the common investigating agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation for verification of the entire records at the time of purchase made by the District Collector. This Court is not find fault with the respective State Government, since the Government in the interest and welfare of the poor and needy people, have taken steps to acquire the land under private negotiation. Under such circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, the sale deed in question is set aside and at the same time this Court is not declaring the ownership of the property. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed on the following directions:- 1. The Chief Secretary concerned shall initiate disciplinary proceedings on the erring officials concerned i.e. from "A" to "Z" including the then Collector and the Tahsildar concerned after fixing their responsibilities. 2. 25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed on the following directions:- 1. The Chief Secretary concerned shall initiate disciplinary proceedings on the erring officials concerned i.e. from "A" to "Z" including the then Collector and the Tahsildar concerned after fixing their responsibilities. 2. The present District Collector of Trichy shall initiate criminal proceedings against the vendor and purchaser of the land and the Tahsildar concerned, by preferring the written complaint to the CBI within 48 Hours after the receipt of copy of this order. 3. The CBI shall investigate thoroughly about the private sale and the person involved in the transaction either in his official capacity or his personal capacity and private persons who are all involved in these transactions prosecute them and proceed with the matter in an appropriate manner. 4. After ascertaining the loss, the Government shall initiate necessary proceedings to recover the same from the concerned officials effectively. 5. If there is any loss to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate separate proceedings in the manner known to law against the erring officials in their individual capacity. 6. The respondents are directed to restore the possession to the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. This Court appreciates the sincere effort taken by the Amicus curiae to bring the above facts before this Court.