Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs Baskaran on 5 July, 2021
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
1.The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
Adidravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
F.S.G.Madras-9.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District .. Appellants in
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
-vs-
1.Baskaran
...1st Respondent in
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
2.Usha
...2nd respondent in
W.A.No.2410 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
Common Prayer: Writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying to allow the Writ Appeals by setting aside the Common Order of
the learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos.7185 of 2001 and 22949 of 2009
dated 23.12.2011.
For Appellant
in both Appeals : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Govt. Advocate
For R1
in both Appeals : Mr.V.Ayyadurai
Senior Counsel
For R2 in
W.A.No.2411 of 2013 : Mr.Annatharaj
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
These Writ Appeals have been directed against the impugned
Common Order dated 23.12.2011 passed in W.P.Nos.7185 of 2001 and
22949 of 2009 in and by which the learned Single Judge, finding fault
with the Special Tahsildar and the District Collector in not properly
providing fair and reasonable opportunity to the land owners, the
respondents herein, allowed those writ petitions, thereby quashing the
acquisition proceedings initiated under 4(1) Notification dated
17.12.1998 holding clearly that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
on the ground of failure to issue notice to the land owners which is in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in
both the appeals taking us through the pleadings pointed out that in
one such place, it has been mentioned that some of the land owners
are eking out their livelihood by making mud pots and also cultivating
their lands and as such, when the land owners have been leading their
lives from the agricultural products received from their lands, the
Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department and the Land
Acquisition Officer ought to have seen properly that notice of enquiry
has been issued giving them a fair and reasonable opportunity to the
land owners to give their explanation as to why the lands-in-question
should not be acquired. When the appellants said to have issued
Form-I Notice as per Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land
for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules 1979, on the respondents, the claim
of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that they
came to know about the acquisition proceedings only after the
notification was published in the District Gazette which was during
March, 1999. Thereafter, they submitted a representation enclosing
certain documents making it clear that they have not given reasonable
opportunity. Therefore, the learned Single Judge while going into this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
crucial aspect held that there was no any record to show that Form-I
notice was sent in Registered Post since it was stated that there was
no such notice received by the land owners in respect of their lands
and other interested persons. Therefore, in the absence of any
document to establish that the respondents were served with a notice,
the learned Single Judge held that the respondents did not have any
notice of the proceedings.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in both the
appeals further pleaded that in the report of the Special Tahsildar,
dated 29.06.1996, it has been stated that the respondents have
presented an objection for acquisition of their lands, but a copy of the
representation said to have been given by the respondents did not
find place in the file. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has come to
the conclusion that the ground taken by the appellants that the land
owners have participated in the enquiry and they gave a
representation are far from acceptance for the simple reason that in
the absence of any document to establish that the respondents-writ
petitioners were served with Form-I Notice in the manner
contemplated under Rule 3(i), it has to be presumed that they were
not given any notice. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be
held as vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
4. Under such circumstances, the argument today advanced
before us by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants calling for interference with the impugned common order
passed by the learned Single Judge has not appealed to us. The
reason being that when the respondents belong to Most Backward
Class and eking out their livelihood by making mud pots and also
cultivating their lands-in-question at Kalambakkam Village, Tiruttani
Taluk, Thiruvallur District, the initiatives made by the appellants to
acquire the lands-in-question for the benefit of constructing Housing
Sites to Irular Community people of Kalambakkam and Chinnamandali
Village, without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of
the Act by adhering to the issuance of notice served on the land
owners, it has to be held that the respondents were not given any
notice and opportunity as required to be done under the said Act and
Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after going into the matter
in detail has held that the writ petitioners were not given any notice
and opportunity as required to be done under the Act.
5. One of the arguments advanced by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants herein is that when
the representation dated 10.11.1995 given by the writ
petitioners/respondents herein was found while taking part in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
enquiry, the learned Single Judge ought to have accepted the case of
the appellants that the respondents were given proper notice as
contemplated under Rule 3 of the Act. The said objection cannot be
taken on record for the simple reason that when the appellants
claimed before us that the respondents/writ petitioners were served
with notice, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that a copy of
the postal acknowledgment card for having sent the registered letter
to the writ petitioners/respondents is not found. Therefore, the
penultimate conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that Form-
I notice as contemplated under Rule 3(i) of the Act has not been
served clearly indicates that there was no fair and reasonable
opportunity given has to be confirmed. Further, giving representation
by the land owners not to acquire their lands cannot amount to
compliance of the conditions mentioned in Form-I notice as
contemplated under Rule 3(i) of the Act by the appellants. In view of
all the above, we are not impressed by anyone of the grounds taken
by the appellants herein in these Writ Appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
6. In the result, both the Writ Appeals fail and the same are
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
05.07.2021
tsi
To
1.The Secretary,Secretary to Govt.
Adidravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
F.S.G.Madras-9.
2.The District Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.Nos.2410 & 2411 of 2013
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
