R. HARIKRISHNAN Vs. THE COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 9273 of 2009, by an order dated 04.08.2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the appellant/writ petitioner are as follows: - -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that inasmuch as the impugned publication made by the first respondent in the form of notification bearing Reference No. K1/4890/2009, dated 26.02.2009 under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant is in gross violation of the mandatory procedure, the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned notification is unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for the appellant specifically contended that prescribed forms are annexed under the Act and when the District Collector is the competent authority to issue the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, he has to consider whether the land is necessary for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidas. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge had proceeded on the wrong footing that the first respondent/District Collector has acted by satisfying himself with regard to the acquisition process without giving any specific finding in the said aspect and the entire order of the learned Single Judge is based upon the presumption and assumption that the first respondent has performed his functions. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the first respondent had deliberately and wantonly failed to satisfy himself in the form of a subjective satisfaction with regard to the objection raised by the owners of the land i.e., the appellant in respect of the aforesaid matter and had failed to communicate such a decision. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the entire notification, which is sought to be quashed in the writ petition, is based upon the decision of the Government to provide lands covered in the schedule to the said impugned notification for the purpose of providing free house sites under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act.