- (1.) THE petitioner has come forward to file the writ petition, challenging the notification issued by the District Collector in the Tiruvannamalai District Government Gazette dated 06.03.2009 made under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for short Act 31 of 1978) in respect of the acquisition of the lands of the petitioner to the extent of Acre 1.00 cents (hectare 0.40.5) in Survey No.256/10B4 situated in Sevoor Village, Arani Taluk as well as the subsequent proceedings and to forbear the respondents from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 15.05.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of dispossession of the land. Since the respondents did not file any counter, this Court directed the original file to be produced for perusal by this Court. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate produced the original file for perusal by this Court and it was also perused. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2004 for consideration. It was claimed that the land was purchased for the purpose of putting up a Rice Mill to cater the needs of the people. But when the land was sought to be acquired for granting free house sites to the Adi Dravidar People of the Sevoor Village, the petitioner sent a representation stating that establishing Adi Dravidar Housing Scheme closer to the village may result in frequent clashes. The ground water was also not fit for consumption and the road abutting the land is a narrow road. Notwithstanding the same, a notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Government Gazette on 06.03.2009. Thereafter, when the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry under Rule 5(1), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) THE contention raised by the petitioner was that his objections were not considered. Instead of the District Collector satisfying himself, the Gazette Notification shows the satisfaction was that of the Government and therefore, on that short ground, the acquisition must fail. Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravida Welfare, Coimbatore and another v. R.Manickammal and others (2002 (2) CTC 1) ii) Jainabi v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep, by the Secretary to the Government (2006 (5) CTC 163). iii) M.Nagu and others v. The District Collector,Sivagangai District (2008 (2) CTC 468). ;