Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned notice Na.Ka.Aa.623/2007, dated 16.10.2007 issued under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijans Act, 1978. 2. The only ground of challenge to the notification is that in pursuance to the notice issued under section 4(2) of the Act, the petitioner has filed objection with the Tahsildar, who did not agree with the objections and recommended acquisition of the petitioner's land to the District Collector. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that the recommendation made by the Tahsildar was not supplied to the petitioner, to enable him to file further objection with the first respondent/District Collector, against land acquisition, in view of the fact that part of the land of the petitioner, had already been acquired for the same purpose and that the petitioner had shown is willingness to give other land adjacent to existing Harijan colony for acquisition. 4. The objection of the petitioner was that the land sought to be acquired was fertile land where petitioner is cultivating paddy crops, whereas the alternative site belonging to the petitioner could be used for development of Harijan colony. 5. In support of the contention that notification under section 4(2) of the Act deserves to be quashed for want of report of the Tahsildar, to enable the petitioner to file objection, reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in R.Pari vs. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another (2007)2 MLJ 706 ) wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench was pleased to lay down as under: "19. Under the Central Act, the power of eminent domain is with the appropriate Government, which obviously would mean an officer of very high rank and experience, whereas under the State Act it is with the Collector, who obviously is an officer of much inferior rank and less experience as compared to the Secretary to the Government. Under the Central Act, the power of eminent domain is with the appropriate Government, which obviously would mean an officer of very high rank and experience, whereas under the State Act it is with the Collector, who obviously is an officer of much inferior rank and less experience as compared to the Secretary to the Government. Since enormous power and responsibility have been vested with a comparatively less senior and less experienced officer, to lessen the possibility of any arbitrary and immature decision being taken, it is always desirable to strengthen the procedural safeguard by reading into the provisions, the principles of natural justice in the shape of at least giving an opportunity of making a further representation to the Collector on the recommendation / report of the authorised officer 20. This aspect can be viewed from another angle. Neither in Section 4 nor in the Rules or even in the Form-I, there is any guideline prescribed as to when the matter would be delegated to the authorised officer or when the matter is to be retained by the Collector. Under the provisions of the State Act, certain power can be exercised by the prescribed authority. According to Section 3(j), "Prescribed Authority" means any authority or Officer authorised by the Government in this regard, by notification. However, "authorised officer" as contemplated in Section 4(2) or (3) is an officer to be authorised by the District Collector and may be different from the prescribed authority. This is clear from the expression contained in Section 4(3)(b) to the effect "Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-section (2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector..." The question as to whether the proposal to initiate acquisition proceedings is to emanate from the District Collector or an officer authorised by the District Collector is thus left to the discretion of the District Collector. If the District Collector, deigns it fit to issue notice himself, the concerned owner or the interested person will have the privilege of filing his objection and having the matter enquired into by the District Collector and can thus avail the benefit of enquiry and personal hearing before the District Collector, whereas if the District Collector for whatever reason thinks it proper to delegate such power to the officer authorised by him, such objection is to foe filed before the authorised officer and. the enquiry is to be held by such authorised officer and thereafter the report is to be submitted before the District Collector. Under the Central Act, there is no such possibility as the enquiry under Section 5-A is statutorily required to be made by one authority, namely, the Collector (The Collector as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). 23. Either way the situation does not appear to be happy and there is no apparent guideline in the matter. Even though the validity of such provision does not appear to have been challenged on account of excessive and unbridled delegation, the matter can be regulated by laying down well defined guideline in the shape of statutory rules rather than leaving it to the untrammeled discretion of the Collector. At any rate, the possibility of such challenge can be waived by following a definite procedure to the effect that the cases where the objections are required to be filed before the authorised officer and enquiry is to be held by such authorised officer, the persons likely to be affected can be given some semblance of equality in treatment by giving them opportunity of filing further representation to the District Collector by pointing out the perceived shortcomings in the report of the authorised officer and by highlighting their own grievances. 24.............. 25. These being some of the important distinctions, it cannot be said that both the statutes are in pari material in all aspects and we venture to observe chat ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in and (cited supra) may not be made applicable and the persons likely to be affected should be given further opportunity of making a further representation to the District Collector on the report recommendation of the authorised officer" 6. It is submitted that subsequently, Hon'ble Full Bench in Sundaravalli Ammal v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & others ( 2008(2) L.W. 124 ) held that there was no necessity to refer the matter to Larger bench as observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench was confirmed by the subsequent Full Bench, is reported in 2008(2) L.W. 124 (supra). 7. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader by referring to para 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit. "7. It is submitted that a registered notice u/s 5(1) was sent to the land owners, V.Ramanathan, V.Govarthanan and Tmt.Saraswathi of Madam Village, to appear for award enquiry on 19.3.2008. All of them have acknowledged the registered notice. V.Ramanathan alone appeared for Award enquiry and stated that he has refused to give his land house for free house site pattas to the Adidravida of madam Village. His objection was over ruled for the reason that he was the big pattadar in that Village. Award proceedings was also sent to the land owners by registered post on 26.3.2008. The land owners have refused to receive the said notices. The cost of land works out to Rs.64,860/- (Rupees sixty four thousand eight hundred and sixty only) was remitted into the Sub Treasury, Vandavasi on 25.3.2008. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner is put to strict proof of all the averments made in paras 3 to 5. The petitioner has not impleaded his brother and sister in the above writ petition want only and deliberately. The above writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The petitioner has not produced/given any evidence to substantiate his contentions in para 5. Regarding para 6, notice in form I dated 16.10.2007 under Rule 4. Sub clause 2 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Act, 1978 was sent to the lawful and owners whose names find place in the chitta maintained by the Revenue Administration. The notice was acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.10.2007. 9. Regarding para 7, the land mentioned by the petitioner is a wet land. Hence that land could not be selected. The wet land is filled with stones and there is a lot of debries in that land. The land was not selected. The notice was acknowledged by the petitioner on 18.10.2007. 9. Regarding para 7, the land mentioned by the petitioner is a wet land. Hence that land could not be selected. The wet land is filled with stones and there is a lot of debries in that land. The land was not selected. Regarding para 8, the petitioner, V.Ramanathan, has not cultivated the punja lands for the past several years. Further, he has not obtained permission either from the Tahsildar or from the Collector for erecting the alleged pipeline in his land. Till date, he has not cultivated any crop in that land. 8. The contention of the learned Additional Govt. Pleader is that it is the petitioner who refused to accept notice in the award proceedings, therefore after passing of award, the petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition. 9. This contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted, as the writ petition was filed prior to the passing of the award therefore, the award is hit by lis pendence. 10. In the counter, it is not disputed that the copy of the recommendation of the Tahsildar was not supplied to the petitioner which resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to file objection to the acquisition. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, this writ petition is allowed. Notification issued under Sec.4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijans Act, 1978 is ordered to be quashed. M.P.No.1 of 2008 is allowed. M.P.No.1 of 2010 is dismissed. No cost.