Judgment : 1. The writ petition is filed for quashing the impugned Section 4(1) notification and Erratum notification dated 5.2.2000 and 1.2.2003 respectively issued by the first respondent District Collector and for consequently forbearing the respondents from acquiring the lands of the petitioners comprised in S.No.331/1A3 Ammoor Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District. 2. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the property having purchased the same vide document No.2564/1980 dated 25.9.1980 and they have been in possession and occupation of the property. They received notice in Form I under section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules 1978, proposing to acquire the petitioners' land for the purpose of providing burial ground to Arundhathiars of Allikulam. The petitioners, on receipt of the notice, submitted their objections regarding location of the property and its unsuitability for being utilised as burial ground. Thereafter, section 4(1) notification in Form II was issued on 5.2.2000, containing two schedules, one of which is the property in question belonging to the petitioners. The impugned notification was followed by erratum notification dated 1.2.2003, mentioning the nature and purpose of acquisition of the land in question as providing burial ground to the Arundhathiars of Allikulam, hamlet of Anmoor Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District. 3. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings on the following grounds:(i)the impugned 4(1) notification dated 5.2.2000 is in violation of the statutory rules and against the principles of natural justice and hence without jurisdiction; (ii)the impugned erratum notification, after three years from the date of issuance of section 4(1) notification is without notice under section 4(2) of the Act to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner in person; and (iii)the proposed site is not suitable for burial ground. 4. Per contra, the relief sought for herein is opposed on the side of the respondents by stating that the petitioners were issued due notice and due opportunity to place their objections and the objections were duly considered and overruled at the time of enquiry and physical possession of the property was taken over and the same was vested with the Government and was thereafter handed over to the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Ammoor for the purpose of providing burial ground. According to the respondents, the petitioners' property is ideal ground for burial purpose. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioners' property is ideal ground for burial purpose. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. In this case, Form I notice was issued under Rule 3(1) by the Special Tahsildar, ADW, Walajah, calling for objection if any, to show cause as to why schedule mentioned land should not be acquired. The petitioners being land owners, duly submitted their objections. The objections were overruled and notification under section 4(1) in Form II was issued on 5.2.2000 and thereafter, Section 4(2) enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar as authorised by the first respondent District Collector. In such cases, section 4(3)(b) mandates that the report of the authorised officer containing its recommendations for acquisition of land shall be submitted to the District Collector for his determination. In this context, it is relevant to refer the Full Bench decision of this court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (R.Pari v. the Special Tahsildar, ADW, Devakkottai and another) wherein, the Full bench had an occasion to deal with the question as to whether the owners/objectors are entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not. It is answered in favour of the objectors/owners stating that the owners should be furnished with the copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer and thereafter, they should be given two weeks time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. The Full Bench in para 43 of the same decision has laid down that 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 owners is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. 7. In this case, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would seriously contend that on the failure of the authority concerned to furnish the report of the authorised officer to the petitioner it would deprive the petitioners of their opportunity to make further representation to the District Collector against the acquisition proceedings on various aspects and the same amounts to denial of valuable rights available to the petitioners. It is also contended before this court that had the report of the authorised officer been furnished to the petitioners, it would have enabled the petitioners to reiterate the objections submitted to the Special Tahsildar before the District Collector so as to enable the District Collector to duly and objectively appreciate the same and to arrive at right conclusion that the acquisition proceedings need not be proceeded with. This Court finds much force in the argument so advanced on the petitioners side for the following reasons. 8. The reading of Form I notice issued to the petitioners would reveal that the land is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing burial ground to Arunthathiyars of Allikulam. The petitioners submitted their objection stating that the land is situated very close to school and a shoe unit, mosque and church and hence lot of public visiting the same every day and establishment of burial ground will cause hardship to the general public and if a grave yard is allowed to be formed in such a main area, the whole atmosphere will be spoiled. It is also stated that there is a Well in the subject land which feeds the workers working in the shoe unit run by the power agent and also to the nearby villagers and the proposed acquisition proceedings will also affect the drinking water facility. It is also the case of the petitioners that there are vast poramboke lands available in and around the said village to fulfill the alleged purpose and also several other Government poramboke lands are available within the vicinity of Adi dravidar colony. 9. However, the petitioners' objections were not considered and section 4(1) notification was issued on 5.2.2000 in Form II containing two schedules. The first schedule is in respect of the land situated in 54, Mittalam Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk and another schedule is in respect of the land in Allikularm Hamlet of Amnoor Village. The notification further says that the land situated in Mittalam village is needed for the purpose of Adi dravidar Welfare Scheme for the provision of burial ground to Arunthathiars of Mittalam Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. The purpose of acquiring the land, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is not mentioned in the notification. The notification further says that the land situated in Mittalam village is needed for the purpose of Adi dravidar Welfare Scheme for the provision of burial ground to Arunthathiars of Mittalam Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. The purpose of acquiring the land, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is not mentioned in the notification. It is mentioned only in erratum notification dated 1.2.2003, stating that the land situated in Ammoor Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District is needed for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme for the provision of burial ground to Arunthathiars of Allikulam hamlet of Ammoor Village, Walaljah Taluk. It is not made out before this court that both the second respondent Special Tahsildar/authorised officer and the first respondent District Collector, have duly dealt with the objections raised by the petitioners objectively and appreciated the same and determined their recommendations and conclusions by overlooking the petitioners' objections that the land in question is not suitable for the purpose for which the same is proposed to be acquired. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench and learned brother judges of this Court have repeatedly held that the order of the authority concerned shall reflect his application of mind and shall assign reason for proceeding with the acquisition proceedings by overlooking the objections of the owners/objectors. Such mandatory requirement appears to have been grossly violated in the present case. Further, the petitioners have by way of additional affidavit dated 17.4.2014 and by way of additional typed set dated 17.4.2014, brought it to the notice of this court that Ammoor Town Panchayat on 31.3.2003 passed Resolution No.152 stating that the proposed formation of burial ground in the subject land bearing S.No.331/1A3 situated in the middle of bus stops and residential area and the same would not only cause inconvenience to the public, but also cause environmental pollution and hence, they decided to approach the authorities to provide alternate site for formation of burial ground. They also made a detailed representation to the second respondent. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this court to the lay out approval in the name of the petitioners bearing DTP No.42 of 2003 issued by the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning for the adjacent lands belonging to the petitioners. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this court to the lay out approval in the name of the petitioners bearing DTP No.42 of 2003 issued by the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning for the adjacent lands belonging to the petitioners. 11. The attention of this court is also drawn to few factors, which are, according to the petitioners, relevant for consideration herein, are as follows: 06.07.2010 - A detailed representation given by the State Executive Member of Arundhathi Makkal Katchi, Ammoor, Vellore District to the 2nd respondent, stating that the proposed acquisition for burial ground is situated nearly 1.5km on the western side and it was very difficult for them to approach the said proposed land and hence sought for alternative land in order to sustain the existence of cordial relationship between them and adi dravidar people residing in the said village. 28.07.2010 - Amoor Town Panchayat passed Resolution No.15 that a suggestion to be given to the Tahsildar, Vellore to drop the proposal of forming burial ground for Arundadhi Villagers in the subject land and to consider for providing the same in the alternative place in view of the opinion and welfare of the public residing in that area. 07.07.2010 - The second respondent Special Tahsildar, ADW, Wallajah, Vellore District, after making an enquiry in village, has sent his opinion, to the first respondent to consider providing alternative place so as to avoid any law and order situation that would be arisen if the proposed acquisition is implemented. 26.07.2010 - The first respondent District Collector based on the opinion given by the second respondent, has directed the second respondent to take action on the representation given by Arundhathi Makkal Katchi, Ammoor and submit their report. 11.10.2012 - The Amoor Town Panchayat has passed Resolution NO.28 that a suggestion to be given to the District Collector and Tahsildar of Vellore to drop the proposal of forming burial ground for Arundadhi Villagers in the subject land and to consider for providing the same in the alternative place in view of the opinion and welfare of the public residing in that area. 12. 12. Thus, the resolution passed by Amoor Town Panchayat and the representation made by Arundhathi Makkal Katchi, Amoor, for whose benefit, the land is being acquired and the report of the Special Tahsildar and the response of the District Collector to the same, would support the petitioners' contention that the land in question is not suited for formation of burial ground for Arundhathiars and if the same is acquired, it would cause inconvenience to the general public, including environmental pollution. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all the factors as stated above, ought to have been duly considered by the respondents 1 and 2 on the first occasion and the very fact that they chosen to accept the same in the subsequent occasion, would substantiate the petitioners' case that the earlier 4(1) notification was passed, without due application of mind and the same suffers from arbitrariness and procedural reasonableness. This Court finds merits and acceptance in the argument so advanced on the side of the petitioners. 13. When the petitioners have raised serious objections against acquisition proceedings, the materials or the grounds for rejection should be stated in the order or it should find place in the file. If the aggrieved person questions the non existence of the conditions or the materials required for the exercise of the power, the Courts have to examine the same and it is for the authorities to satisfy the Court, the grounds on the basis of which, the notification is issued. In this case, the authority concerned, acted strictly in accordance with law, but failed to convince that there has been an application of mind on the part of the District Collector and the objections were dealt with objectively to arrive at subjective satisfaction and sufficient reasons were recorded in arriving at such conclusion by the District Collector. On the contrary, the materials made available herein would only prove that there are no materials or grounds available for rejecting the petitioners' objections. In that event, the conclusion arrived at by the District Collector suffers from non-application of mind and stands vitiated by arbitrariness and against mandate and not in consonance with the Schemes of the Act, as such, the acquisition proceedings are necessarily held to be vitiated and stand quashed.