Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2955 (MAD)

M. Periyasamy v. District Collector

2014-08-27

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, learned counsel with Ms. Usha Ramman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Mr. T.N. Rajagopal, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27.11.2006 made in W.P. No. 16649 of 1998, wherein the relief sought for was to quash the orders of the 1st and 2nd respondent passed by them in Na. Ka. Ya. 2.64/97 dated 10.09.1997 and Na. Ka. A/21/96 dated .10.1998 respectively and the learned Single Judge had dismissed the said writ petition. 3. The appellant/petitioner had stated in the writ petition that though proposal of construction of houses for Adi Dravidars was made in the year 1996 by acquiring agricultural land bearing S. Nos. 369-4C 3, 5A, 6A, 7 and 13A in Managathy Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur by the respondents, even after a lapse of two years, no sign of process had taken place and the respondents, without giving opportunity to the appellant/petitioner, issued notice under Rule 5(1) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Service Rules, 1979. It was claimed by the appellant that he has no other land and there are poramboke cultivable lands available with the State for construction of houses for the Adi-Dravidars. The grievance of the petitioner is that the procedures prescribed under Sub-Section (2) to Section 4 as also Sub-Section 3(b) to Section 4 Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (herein after referred to as the Act 31 of 1978) have not been complied with by the respondents and no notice was given for periodical enquiry under Rule 5(1) and other formalities were not complied. 4. To reciprocate the above submissions, the respondents took a stand before the Writ Court stating that the Land Acquisition proceeding was initiated to acquire dry lands consisting of 1.05.0 hectare in Managathy Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur for the provisions of house sites to the poor Adi Dravidars of Adichanoor Village under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act. The details of lands to be acquired including that of the petitioner have been shown as follows:- S. No. Extent in Hec. Name of Pattadars 1. R.S. No. 369/3 0.18.0 782 Tmt. Ramamirtham, W/o Narayanan 2. The details of lands to be acquired including that of the petitioner have been shown as follows:- S. No. Extent in Hec. Name of Pattadars 1. R.S. No. 369/3 0.18.0 782 Tmt. Ramamirtham, W/o Narayanan 2. R.S. No.369 4C3 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 0.11.5 0.00.5 0.03.0 0.24.5 0.11.5 ---------- 0.51.0 ---------- 682 Periyasamy, S/o Muthusamy 3. R.S. No. 369 - 8 - 12 0.12.5 0.09.5 1. Tmt. Santhiralekha, W/o Sivasamy 2. Tmt. Manikkavalli, W/o Kumar 4. R.S. No.369 - 16 0.14.0 Kandasamy, S/o Samynatha Padayachi 1.05.0 5. However, learned Single Judge, on perusal of records and finding justification with the stand taken by the respondents, had come to the conclusion that since all the procedures were duly followed, no ground was made out to interfere with the proceedings in challenge. It is relevant to extract hereunder the stand of the respondents taken therein:- "Notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was issued on the petitioner in Ref. A/21/96 dated 29th May 1996 and was sent by the Registered Post on 3rd June 1996. The same was served on the petitioner on 4th June 1996/8th June 1996. The petitioner Thiru M. Periyasamy, who received the notice on 4th June 1996 did not choose to appear for enquiry on 19th June 1996. His lawyer has forwarded the objection, which was received on 19th June 1996 and having taken into consideration the fact that it was not tenable, they were over ruled by the Collector in his proceeding W2/64/97 dated 10th September 1997. Thereafter notification under Sub-Section (1) to Section 4 was published in the Perambalur District Gazette on 1st October 1997; award enquiry was posted on 26th October 1998 under Section 7(3) of the Act 31 of 1978 and finally award was passed on 16th December 1998 in Award No. 21 of 1996. Further according to the respondents, the petitioner owns 0.81.0 hectares of dry land other than the land under acquisition and he is already employed as a teacher." 6. However, the main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Single Judge had failed to take into account the non compliance of Section 3(b) of the Act. He also contended that when there are alternative lands available, without acquiring the same, the respondents are attempting to acquire the land of the appellant for public purpose. 7. He also contended that when there are alternative lands available, without acquiring the same, the respondents are attempting to acquire the land of the appellant for public purpose. 7. A perusal of the records would prima facie go to show that after issuance of notice under Section 4(2) of the Act on the petitioner in Ref. A/21/96 dated 29.05.1996, that upon notification under Sub-Section (1) to Section 4, which was also published in the Perambalur District Gazette on 01.10.1997 and that on completion of other formalities, award was passed on 16.11.1998. We do not find any procedural irregularities in acquisition of land and moreover, it was the appellant, who did choose to appear for the enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 19.06.1996. 8. On the plea of acquisition of alternative land, it is stated that since the petitioner owns 0.81.0 hectares of dry land, the respondents have decided to acquire his land for the said purpose as per Rules and procedures contemplated under the Act. If we have a bare look at the provisions of the Act, it comes to light that the Government have power to opt for any particular land for acquisition for the welfare of Harijan scheme by following due procedures of law. As per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, 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. Section 4(2) of the Act also provides that before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired. 9. In the case on hand, it is the stand of the respondents that despite notice to the petitioner for enquiry, he has not chosen to appear to put forth his objections and suggestions. 9. In the case on hand, it is the stand of the respondents that despite notice to the petitioner for enquiry, he has not chosen to appear to put forth his objections and suggestions. Moreover, though the plea of alternative land has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant now, the same has not at all been raised either before the Writ Court or in the pleadings mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this Appeal. Therefore, in absence of such plea, it could only be construed as untenable, substituted by the appellant for his betterment. 10. On giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both sides, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no infirmity with the acquisition proceedings as well as the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is well founded and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.