WP/6176/1998 of NANJUNDA REDDY Vs 1.G/.TN REP. BY SECY., on 19 December 2002

Conclusion

1. Nanjunda Reddy2.N.Sreenivasa Reddy3.N.Gopal Reddy4.N.Krishna Reddy ..... Petitioners -Vs-

1. The Government of Tamil Nadurep. by its Secretary,Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,Fort St.George, Madras-9.

2. The District Collector,Dharmapuri District.

3. The Special Tahsildar,Harizan Welfare,Krishnagiri,Dharmapuri District...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issuea Writ of Certiorari as stated within.

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Subramanian

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

2. In this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land forHarijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978).

3. One of the main contention raised in the writ petition relates to lack of notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act. Ithas been specifically asserted that the petitioners have not received anynotice under Section 4(2) of the Act. It has been further stated as follows:-"The respondents have not issued any notice to us as provided for underSection 4(2) of the Act calling upon us to show cause why the land should notbe acquired. The respondents have thus not followed the mandatory provisionsas contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act."

4. In the counter it has been stated as follows:- "The enquiry was conducted in the office of the Special Tahsildar,Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Krishnagiri on 27.10.1997. The land owners andinterested persons have not availed the opportunity, and they have not chosento send any objections towards acquisition. Therefore the Drafat Notificationunder Section 4(1) of Tamilnadu Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31/78 waspublished in the Dharmapuri District Gazette, Extraordinary issue No.85 atpage 4 dated 3.12.1997. The notice in Form-I was issued on 3.3.1998 andserved on the interested persons on 5.3.1998. The award enquiry was conductedon 25.3.1998. The writ petitioner has appeared for enquiry and objected theacquisition besides, an objection petition through lawyer was presented."5.Even though it has been stated that notice has been issuedon 3.3 .1998, which was served to them on 5.3.1998 for their appearance inrespect of award enquiry conducted on 25.3.1998, in fact, it is a notice inForm-3 issued under Rule 5(1) of the Rules and it is not the notice issuedunder Section 4(2) of the Act.

Section 4(2) of the Act runs as follows:- "Before publishing a notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4, the DistrictCollector 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 theDistrict Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in suchland, to show cause why it should not be acquired."

Rule 3(i) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare SchemesRules 1979, runs as follows:- "Procedure for acquiring land: (i) The District Collector or the officerauthorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show cause notice in Form Iunder Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 individually on the owner or on all personsinterested in the land to be acquired. If the owner or any other personinterested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, theshow cause notice shall be sent by Registered Post (Acknowledgment Due) to thelast known address of the owner or any other person interested."A mere perusal of Rule 3(i) of the Rules makes it clear that the notice hasnot been sent under Section 4(1) of the Act to the individual owner byRegistered Post with Acknowledgment Due.

6. In the present case, in the counter it has not been specifically stated that notice had been sent by Registered Post and the ownerrefused to accept the said notice.

7. Be that as it may, to satisfy regarding the nature of

issuance of the notice, the matter had been adjourned on several occasions, sothat records could be produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. Inspite of the matter had been adjourned on three occasions and 50 days haveelapsed, no records have been produced by the learned Special GovernmentPleader.8.In such view of the matter, one can come to the conclusionthat notice as contemplated under Rule 3(i) of the Rules was never sent byRegistered Post. Therefore, the Notification dated 3.12.1997 issued underSection 4(1) of the Act is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.No costs. Consequently no order is necessary in WMP.NO.9549 OF 1998 and thesame is closed.9.It is seen that the period has been expired. It is however,made clear, that it is open to the respondents to take fresh proceedings, ifnecessary, in accordance with law.

Index:YesWebsite:Yestsv.

To1.The Secretary,Government of Tamil NaduAdi Dravidar Welfare Department,Fort St.George, Madras-9.

2. The District Collector,Dharmapuri District.

3. The Special Tahsildar,Harizan Welfare,Krishnagiri,Dharmapuri District.