JUDGMENT : S.S. Sundar, J. 1. This Writ appeal is filed against the order made in WP(MD) No.10642 of 2005 dated 05.07.2011 by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant has filed the writ in WP(MD)No.1064 of 2005, challenging the land acquisition notification dated 26.09.2005, issued under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Acquistion of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act (herein after referred as "Act"), which was published in the District Gazette dated 27.09.2005. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the owner of the land in Survey No.97 land measuring to the extent of 0.12.5 Hectares at Pettai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai. In the revenue records, the land is classified as punja lands. It is the case of the appellant that the petitioner has planted coconut trees and irrigating lands through permanent source. It is stated that the 1st respondent proposed to initiate action for acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of a hostel for Girl Students of Sholavandan Adi Dravidar Welfare School. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court observing that no ground is made out to quash the notification. It is further observed by the Learned Single Judge that the decision was taken by the District Collector after considering the report submitted by the 2nd respondent and also considering the objections and that therefore, no ground is made out for quashing the Land Acquisition proceeding. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant/ the land owner has preferred this Writ Appeal. 5. Since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant raised some factual issues on the basis of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Full Bench of this Court, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the files relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of appellant's lands. On perusal of the file, the following facts are found. By notice dated 22.08.2005, the 2nd respondent herein called upon the appellant to appear for an enquiry for recording his objections if any for the proposed acquisition. It is stated that the objections, which are received within the time and the same would be enquired on 06.09.2005. This notice was served on the appellant on 30.08.2005. As stated in the notice, the enquiry was conducted on 06.09.2005. 6. It is stated that the objections, which are received within the time and the same would be enquired on 06.09.2005. This notice was served on the appellant on 30.08.2005. As stated in the notice, the enquiry was conducted on 06.09.2005. 6. The appellant submitted his written objection, through his authorised agent on that day. Though several objections were raised by the appellant before the second respondent, appointed by the District Collector to hold enquiry on behalf of the Collector, the following objections are relevant. a. The land proposed to be acquired is a coconut thope, wherein, 17 coconut trees are reared and maintained by the appellant, capable of yielding coconuts for 50 years and therefore, acquiring this valuable and fertile land will cause loss to the owner and it will be unfair. b. The land is not suitable for construction of ladies hostel in view of the soil and the location of the property. c. A public pathway leading to river on the eastern side of the land is used by the general public. It is not safe to accommodate the girl students in the building, which is surrounded by variety of people. d. There is an alternate site available, which is known as "Mandaikalam" which is just 150 yards away from the proposed land. e. The alternative land is also a piece of land, which is just abutting the road and hence, more appropriate and suitable for the purpose. 7. The Special Tahsildar/second respondent herein submitted his proposal by preparing a proforma relating to this acquisition on 12.09.2005, that is within 3 days of enquiry under Section 4(2) of the Act. On the same day, namely, on 12.09.2005, the 2nd respondent sent a report (proposal) to the 1st respondent. In the said report after referring to some of the objections raised by the appellant the 2nd respondent has observed as follows : XXXXX Even the above contents is found in the hand writing of somebody without signature. 8. From the above it is seen that the 2nd respondent has not given any reasons for rejecting the objections of the land owner. The reason that the objections are not acceptable and hence, they are rejected and cannot be considered will only indicate that there was no application of mind by the enquiry officer concerned. Of course, this report was forwarded to the 1st respondent. The reason that the objections are not acceptable and hence, they are rejected and cannot be considered will only indicate that there was no application of mind by the enquiry officer concerned. Of course, this report was forwarded to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 23.09.2005, has directed the 2nd respondent to publish notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the District Gazette. However, in exercise of his power under Section 4(1) of the Act, the 1st respondent has considered the objections in the following lines : XXXXX 9. From the records, it is evident that the enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent, who was authorized by the 1st respondent. On the basis of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent, a decision has been taken by the 1st respondent to acquire the land that was included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The report submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent was not forwarded to the land owner and no further opportunity was given to the land owner. However, the District Collector without considering the objections of the land owner / appellant directed the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the District Gazette. The Collector has simply stated that the objections are not acceptable. With this factual matrix, this writ petition questioning the Land Acquisition proceedings has to be considered. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 - in the case of R.Pari vs. Special Tahsildhar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai (Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District) and another. In paragraphs Nos.37 to 43, it has been held as follows : 37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the land owner to make a further representation to the District Collector does not mean that in every case, where such report has not been furnished, the ultimate order passed by the District Collector deciding to acquire the land is automatically vitiated. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the report and affording further opportunity to the land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the authorised officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the authorised officer, the land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District. Collector. In other words, If the authorised officer has considered, the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendation, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished and no further opportunity is given to the land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner have been ignored by the authorised officer. It may be reasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately the court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case. 38. So far as Question No. 2 is concerned, since it is construed by us that it is necessary for the Collector to give opportunity to the owner to file further representation on the report / recommendation made by the authorised officer, such copy of the report/recommendation is required to be furnished. We also add that in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 the owner would be entitled to copy of the report of the authorised officer. 39. We also add that in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 the owner would be entitled to copy of the report of the authorised officer. 39. It was submitted on behalf of the State Government that since specific provisions had been made in Section 4 and Rule 3 and particularly in Form I, it would not be appropriate to incorporate any other principle of natural justice. A similar contention had been repelled by the Supreme Court in the decision (Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi) and (S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Ors.). In the later decision, relying upon the decision, it was observed: "10. ...We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Attorney General. It is not always a necessary inference that if opportunity is expressly provided in one provision and not so provided in another, opportunity is to foe considered as excluded from that other provision. It may be a weighty consideration to be taken into account but the weightier consideration is whether the administrative action entails civil consequences. This was also the view taken in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi Where it was observed (at p. 316):" "We have been told that wherever the Parliament has intended a hearing it has said so in the Act and the rules and inferentially where it has not specified it is otiose. There is no such sequitur. The silence of a statute has no exclusionary effect except where it flows from necessary implication. Article 324 vests a wide power and where some direct consequence on candidates emanates from its exercise we must read this functional obligation." 40. It is easier to answer question No. 3 The learned Single Judge has referred to the Division Bench decision reported in 2005 (2) LW 199 (The District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District and Anr. vs. Manickam). In the aforesaid decision, M. Katju, C.J., as his Lordship then was speaking for the Bench observed: "8. In the present case, it appears that the order of the District Collector was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind by merely filling up a cyclostyled form. We cannot approve of such kind of orders. vs. Manickam). In the aforesaid decision, M. Katju, C.J., as his Lordship then was speaking for the Bench observed: "8. In the present case, it appears that the order of the District Collector was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind by merely filling up a cyclostyled form. We cannot approve of such kind of orders. It may foe that the Special Tahsildar, who was authorised by the District Collector, considered the objections of the land owners, but in our opinion the District Collector must also consider those objections and apply his own mind to those objections, as has been held in the Wednesbury case (see quotation above). Though we agree with the learned Special Government Pleader that if opportunity of hearing has been given by the person authorised by the District Collector under Section 4(2) of the Act (in this case the Special Tahsildar) it is not necessary for the District Collector to give a second opportunity of hearing, yet in our opinion the District Collector must certainly apply his own mind to the objections made by the land owner to the acquisition as they affect his very valuable rights. The Collector need not write an elaborate order like a judgment of a Court of Law while rejecting the objections of the land owner, but he must at least in brief mention the reasons why he is rejecting the objections so that the land, owner may have the satisfaction that his objections have been considered and this Court also may be satisfied that the District Collector had applied his mind to such objections." 41. So far as the first part of the observation regarding the necessity for the District Collector to give second opportunity of hearing is concerned, such aspect has been dealt with while considering question Nos. 1 and 2. However, so far as the latter part of the observation laying down the necessity of the District Collector to apply mind to the objection made by the land owners and to indicate the reasons, however brief the reasons may be, must receive our approval without much demur. In view of the power of eminent domain the State obviously cannot be denied such right. However, right to land being a constitutional right recognised under Article 300A of the Constitution, such right can be denied only in accordance with law. In view of the power of eminent domain the State obviously cannot be denied such right. However, right to land being a constitutional right recognised under Article 300A of the Constitution, such right can be denied only in accordance with law. Law which provides for such acquisition of land obviously should stand the test of lack of arbitrariness as otherwise such law may fly in the face of Article 14 and may be Article 21. Even though the substantive right of the State to acquire land cannot be denied, such law providing for acquisition of land should satisfy the test of procedural reasonableness and it is therefore apparent that the authority acquiring such land (in the present case the District Collector) must be satisfied about the necessity to acquire such land and while arriving at such satisfaction, the authority is also required to consider the objections raised by the land owner. The authority must be alive to the requirement of balancing the need of the State as well as peculiar disadvantages to be suffered by the land owner. As observed by the Division Bench even though the authority is not expected to write "reasoned judgment" the materials on record must indicate that the authority has applied its mind. Obviously the magic incantations of the words used in the Act or the Rules would not indicate that mind has been applied and therefore, it is always desirable for the authority to indicate the reasons why such authority is talking a decision to acquire the land and rejecting the objection of the land owner. As a matter of fact, to be fair to the learned Additional Advocate General, he has stated in no uncertain term that the need to give reasons for the decision has to be read into the enactment. In the aforesaid context, the learned Additional Advocate General has also referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in 2004 (3) MLJ 129 (V. Kannian vs. The Collector, Salem District, Salem and Ors.). Therefore, in our opinion, the requirement to give reasons however brief the reasons may be, must be read, into the provisions and this requirement is not merely confined to the cases where the Collector is considering the reports submitted by the authorised officer, but such requirement is also necessary while the Collector himself is dealing with the matter by holding an enquiry. 42. 42. However, it is necessary to enter a small caveat. The observation made by the Division bench or the 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 nothings 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 nothings, 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 foe 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. 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 authorized 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. 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 reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not Contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is not 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. All the writ petitions are now required to be placed before the single Judge." 11. Considering the authoritative pronouncement of judgment of full Bench of this Court, it is clear that the appellant should be furnished with the copy of the report / recommendation of the Authorised Officer. In this case, admittedly this procedure has not been followed. Further, it is seen that though mere non-furnishing of the report is not sufficient to vitiate the proceedings as per Full Bench judgment of this Court, this Court is able to see that serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant as there was total non-application of mind, as to the objections raised by the appellant at the time of holding an enquiry. With the sequence of events as it has already been pointed out by this Court the 2nd respondent though conducted an enquiry rejected the objections without assigning any reason. The appellant's valuable right is raise objection is defeated. His objections are bared on facts that proposed land, which is sought to be acquired, is a coconut thope and that there is an alternative land available in the nearby vicinity, which is just abutting the main road and more suitable cannot be ignored. The appellant's valuable right is raise objection is defeated. His objections are bared on facts that proposed land, which is sought to be acquired, is a coconut thope and that there is an alternative land available in the nearby vicinity, which is just abutting the main road and more suitable cannot be ignored. The objections has substance and any land owner is entitled to have his objections considered. This Court is of the view that the objections cannot be simply overruled or rejected without assigning any reason. Even this one line rejection of objection appears to have been introduced by interpolation without signature. 12. In the present case, as seen from the records, the Collector has not even referred to the objections of the land owner. He accepted the report, wherein, there was no application of mind as to how and why the objections cannot be accepted. Hence, we are of the firm view that the whole enquiry and the decision of the District Collector under Section 4(1) of the Act are vitiated. The power of eminent domain is subject to the observance of the procedure prescribed under the statute. Having regard to the facts narrated above, this Court is inclined to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quash the proceedings. 13. As a result, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court challenged in this appeal is set aside and the writ appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.10642 of 2005 stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.