Batthumalai Chettiar (Died) vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 20055 Mad

                                                                         W.P.No.29460 of 2003

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 30.09.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               W.P.No.29460 of 2003
                                                       and
                                              W.P.M.P.No.35970 of 2003

                 1. Batthumalai Chettiar (Died)
                 2. B.Thiyagarajan
                 3. B.Arangasamy
                 4. B.Mohanakrishnan
                 5. Latha
                 6. B.Anandan
                 7. B.Sridhar
                    [P-2 to P-7 are substituted as LRs of deceased P-1
                    Batthumalai Chettiar as per order dated 27.03.2017
                    in W.M.P.No.26743/2016 in W.P.No.29460/2003]
                                                                             ... Petitioners

                                                        Vs.

                 1. The District Collector,
                    Villupuram District,
                    Villupuram.

                 2. The Special Tahsildar
                    (Adi-Dravidar Welfare)
                    Tindivanam,
                    Villupuram District.                                  ... Respondents




                1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  W.P.No.29460 of 2003

                           Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                 issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that that the acquisition of lands
                 measuring 0.45.5 hectares in Survey No.106/4A (New No.209/9) Kodiyam
                 Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District belonging to the petitioner
                 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare
                 Scheme Act, 1978 (Act No.31 of 78) and the rules made thereunder in pursuant
                 to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 07.07.2000 made in
                 Na.Ka.No.A/16/99 as approved by the first respondent in proceeding dated
                 .07.2000 made in M1/6977/99 is null and void.


                                        For Petitioners      : Mr.M.Elumalai
                                                               for Mr.M.Gnanasekar

                                        For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan
                                                          Government Advocate


                                                       ORDER

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of declaration, declaring that

that the acquisition of lands measuring 0.45.5 hectares in Survey No.106/4A

(New No.209/9) Kodiyam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District

belonging to the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition

of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 (Act No.31 of 78) (hereinafter

referred to 'the Act' for short) and the rules made thereunder in pursuant to the

proceedings of the second respondent dated 07.07.2000 made in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

Na.Ka.No.A/16/99 as approved by the first respondent in proceedings dated

.07.2000 made in M1/6977/99, is null and void.

2. The first petitioner had died and his legal heirs have been brought on

record as the second to seventh petitioners herein. It is the case of the first

petitioner that the land comprised in Survey No.106/4A, New Survey No.209/9

ad-measuring to an extent of 0.45.5 hectares situated in Kodiyam Village was

owned by the him. The said land is adjacent to the existing colony, selected for

acquisition to provide house site to the Adi-Dravidars under the Act.

Accordingly, the notification was issued under Section 4(2) of the Act in Form

No.1. The land owners were called for enquiry which was to be held on

06.07.2000. The first petitioner appeared for enquiry before the second

respondent and he raised his objections. Thereafter, statement was recorded

from the land owners and the remarks were sent to the first respondent for

issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The first petitioner

raised objections that the Kodiyam Village already has Harijan Colonies. As

such, there is no need for providing house sites to the Harijans. That apart,

only the property owned by the first petitioner is an agricultural property, being

under the cultivation. However, without considering the objections raised by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

the first petitioner, the second respondent recommended for declaration under

Section 4(1) of the Act. On receipt of the same, the first respondent, by an

order dated 14.07.2000, accorded consent for publication of notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act. The proceedings of the land acquisition are under

challenge in this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised three grounds: (i) The

first petitioner was not served with notice under Section 4(2) of the Act as

contemplated under Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) The first

petitioner was not served with any notice as contemplated under Section 7(3)

of the Act to determine the compensation. (iii) The second respondent, without

even applying his mind, accorded consent for issuance of notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the

judgement of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (2006) 4 CTC 609

(R.Pari Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Divakottai

(Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District) and another).

4. The second respondent filed counter affidavit, from which it revealed

that houseless Adi-dravidars of Kodiyam Village of Tindivanam Taluk have

represented for the provision of house site. Therefore, the Government decided

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

to acquire the dry lands quite adjacent to the existing colony and selected the

same for acquisition. The first respondent, by his proceedings dated

14.07.2000, has authorised the second respondent to perform his functions

under Sections 4(2) and 4(1) (b) of the Act. The notice was published under

Section 4(2) of the Act in Form I and the enquiry was conducted at the office

of the Village Administrative Officer on 06.07.2000. The land comprised in

Old R.S.No.106/4A New R.S.No.209/9A belongs to the first petitioner. The

first petitioner appeared for the enquiry and his statement was recorded as

objections. After considering the objections raised by the first petitioner, a

detailed report was sent to the first respondent for issuance of notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the first respondent approved and

published Section 4(1) notification in the District Gazette on 22.07.2000.

Thereafter, the award enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and the

award was passed in Award No.8/00-01 dated 06.11.2000. Since the land

owners have refused to receive the award amount, it has been deposited in the

Civil Court. In fact, the other land owner filed a writ petition before this Court

in W.P.No.6550 of 2003 challenging the 4(1) notification and the same was

dismissed by this Court on 12.09.2003.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

submitted that the first petitioner was duly served with notice under Section

4(2) of the Act and he had very much attended the enquiry on 06.07.2000 and

his statement was duly recorded by the Village Administrative Officer. He

raised objections that he is not only the owner of the land, and other brother is

also there and they are cultivating the said land. In the subject land, there is a

Well and he is drawing water fall from the said Well for irrigation purpose.

Therefore, he requested for excluding the land from acquisition. After

considering the objections raised by the first petitioner, the second respondent

had sent a detailed report about the objections and the remarks. After

considering the objections and remarks sent by the second respondent, the first

respondent accorded approval for notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

Therefore, the first respondent applied his mind and on being satisfied with the

report sent by the second respondent, he accorded approval for issuance of

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He also produced the records to

show that the statement of the first petitioner and other land owners, were

recorded and the same have been part of the report. Thereafter, the land owners

including the first petitioner, were duly served with notice under Section 7(3)

of the Act for award enquiry. In fact, the first petitioner had appeared and he

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

raised objections with regard to the quantum of compensation and refused to

receive the compensation. Therefore, the entire compensation amount has been

deposited in the Civil Court. He further submitted that after passing the award,

the possession of the property has been taken over by the Government and the

beneficiaries have been granted free patta as early as on 28.02.2002 itself.

However, the beneficiaries could not enter into the subject property, since this

Court granted interim order against the acquisition proceedings.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

7. The land comprised in Survey No.106/4A (New No.209/9) situated at

Kodiyam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District belonged to the first

petitioner. On the request made by the Adi-dravidars of Kodiyam Village,

Tindivanam Taluk, the Government proposed to acquire the land for free house

sites to the Adi-dravidars. Therefore, the land adjacent to the existing colony

was selected for acquisition and notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the

Act. Though the first petitioner raised the ground that he was not served with

notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, he appeared before the second respondent

for enquiry on 06.07.2000 and he raised objections. The records revealed that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

his statement was recorded by the Village Administrative Officer during the

enquiry conducted by the second respondent. Therefore, no prejudice was

caused to the first petitioner for non serving of the notice under Section 4(2) of

the Act.

8. Insofar as the approval for issuance of notification under Section 4(1)

of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the first petitioner relied upon

the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (2006) 4 CTC 609

(R.Pari Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Divakottai

(Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District) and another), in which it has

been held follows:-

“1. The questions referred to the Full Bench for determination in the context of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) hereinafter referred to as “the Act” are as follows:

i) Is it necessary for the Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar?

ii) Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not?

iii) Should the Collector records his reasons in his order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

while dealing with the objections of the owner?

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.

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 authorised 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. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

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.”

9. From the above decision, it is clear that the District Collector has to

apply his mind to the objections made by the land owners and indicate the

reasons, however brief the reasons may be and he must receive approval

without much demur. 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 be open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court that such

action of the Collector is challenged in respect of such acquisition.

10. In the case on hand, after conducting enquiry, the statement of the

respective land owners, were recorded as objections raised by the Village

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

Administrative Officer during the enquiry conducted by the second respondent

and the same had sent to the first respondent for approval for issuance of

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

11. On a perusal of the order dated 14.07.2000, it is clear that the first

respondent did not consider the objections raised by the first petitioner in

proper and perspective manner. The first respondent merely referred the report

submitted by the second respondent and passed the order dated 14.07.2000,

thereby accorded approved for publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the

Act. On a perusal of the records, it also reveals that the first respondent did not

state any of the reason over-ruling the objections raised by the first petitioner

as well as did not state any of the reasons to over-rule the objections raised by

the first petitioner as well as he did not state any reason to accept the

recommendation of the second respondent. Therefore, the above judgment is

squarely applicable to the case on hand and on this ground alone, the entire

acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside.

12. Insofar as the another ground raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the first petitioner was never served with any notice as

contemplated under Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of value of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

land, on a perusal of the records, it reveals that the first petitioner was duly

served with notice and he appeared for award enquiry. In the award enquiry, he

raised objections and refused to receive the compensation and as such, the

compensation for the land acquired from the first petitioner was deposited in

the Civil Court. However, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for on

the ground that the first respondent without applying its mind, mechanically

passed the order to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings are

quashed in so far as the petitioners' land alone. Accordingly, this Writ Petition

is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No

costs.

30.09.2021 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

To

1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar Welfare) Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv

W.P.No.29460 of 2003

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.29460 of 2003

30.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/