- (1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent herein in Lr.No.Rc.J1/20030/2002 dated 24.07.2002 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette No.17 dated 03.08.2002 in so far as the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 13/6 A, 13/6 B, 13/8, 13/9, 13/10, 13/4, 14/5, 14/8, 14/9a, 14/9b, 14/10, 14/11a, 14/11b, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1A in Ariyalur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
(2.) 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land in Survey Nos.13/2, 13/3, 13/6 A, 13/6 B, 13/8, 13/9, 13/10, 13/4, 14/5, 14/8, 14/9a, 14/9b, 14/10, 14/11a, 14/11b, 18/1, 18/2, 19/1A in Ariyalur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The petitioner had purchased the above said lands from several vendors by various sale deeds dated 17.11.1984, 31.10.1985, 09.01.1986 and 09.05.1986 and right from the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous enjoyment and uninterrupted possession of the lands and he has also paid necessary kist and other taxes. The petitioner is also possessing necessary pattas for the above said lands.2.2. The further case of the petitioner is that on 18.9.2000, the second respondent herein, namely, Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ponneri, issued a Notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Adi-dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") r/w Rule 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioner under the Act.2.3. The petitioner submitted his objection dated 29.09.2000 pointing out that the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural lands and such lands are the only source of income and if the same is acquired, he would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss. The petitioner understands that the some other adjoining lands were also sought to be acquired and similar objections were raised by the the other land owners. Thereafter, by order dated 30.03.2001 passed under Section 4(3) of the Act, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings were dropped after inspection of the lands taking into account of the fact that it would not be possible to make pucca constructions on the said lands.2.4. The further case of the petitioner is that petitioner along with his wife had gone abroad for a long time from 26th April 2002 to 31st October 2002 and after their return to India in November 2002, the petitioner came to know that a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act in proceedings Lr.No.Rc.J1/20030/2002 dated 24.7.2002 published in the Official Gazette by the Collector, Thiruvallur District, the first respondent herein to the effect that petitioner's lands and other lands in Ariyalur Village were acquired for provisions of house sites to Adi Dravidas. The petitioner came to be informed of such development only in the end of December 2002 and thereafter, the petitioner was able to get a copy of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the Official Gazette. The said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was passed without following the mandatory requirements of serving show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections and only thereafter, the necessary orders to be passed under Section 4(3) of the Act by the Collector or authorities or Authorized Officer either accepting the objections by dropping the proceedings or otherwise. After following the above said procedure only, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act can be issued.2.5. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the above said mandatory requirements were not followed. The disputed lands were already released from acquisition in March 2001, considering the objections raised by the petitioner and decided to drop the proceedings. Therefore the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with this petition. 1. The respondents by filing a counter denied the allegations contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein. It is admitted by the respondents in the counter that the proposal to acquire the lands of the petitioner for Adi Dravida housing was dropped on the objections raised by the petitioner after inspection of the disputed lands of the petitioner considering that the said lands were found not suitable for pucca construction. It is further stated that thereafter on a representation of Dr.Ambedkar Nadaipathai Vasihal Nalavazvu Sangam, the respondents initiated a fresh proceedings by issuing notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978. The petitioner did not appear for the enquiry or filed any objections in writing and the contention that the petitioner was away from India is flimsy and not acceptable. The land acquisition process was completed as per rules, the report was submitted to the Collector in R.C.61/2002 dated 29.04.2002 for publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act 31/78. The Collector, in turn, approved the report by order dated 24.7.2002 and issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was also published in the District Gazette of Tiruvallur under Issue No.17.2. The respondents also filed additional counter affidavit in respect of their claim of serving notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the Rules. In the said additional counter affidavit while narrating the sequence of events, it is stated that a notice as per provisions under Rule 3(1) was despatched to the land owners through the registered post with acknowledgement due calling them to file their objections if any at the time of enquiry on 25.05.2002 and 01.04.2002 and the postal receipts were pasted in the despatch register of the respondents' Office. The petitioner did not appear at the time of enqiury. Thereafter, the further process of acquisition was taken and the District Collector, Thiruvallur, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and the notification was published in the extra-ordinary District Gazettee No.17 dated 008.2002. It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit that awards in respect of the owners of other lands were passed on 24.02004 after filling this writ petition by the petitioner and no award was passed in respect of the petitioner as this Court granted status quo by order dated 29.01.2003 and such interim order was made absolute on 17.10.2008. Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondents have not served the notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act and they have not followed the procedures contemplated as per Rule 3(1) of the rules and as such the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that though the respondents have now come forward with the version that the respondents sent a notice as per Section 4(2) of the Act through registered post with acknowledgement due, they have not stated so in the first counter and only for the first time it is stated in the additional counter affidavit. The learned counsel would further contend that the respondents have not produced any acknowledgement to substantiate their contention that they have served notice to the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that yet another contention of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that they affixed the notice on a placard is also made for the first time during the course of arguments of the learned Government Advocate and the same is neither stated in the first counter nor in the additional counter affidavit. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is absolutely no material available on record to establish that the respondents have taken all efforts to serve notice on the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the Rules. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contentions, would place reliance on the following decisions of this Court :(i) Nagu, M. V. The District Collector, Sivagangai District reported in 2008 (2) CTC 468 and(ii) Kannian V. The Collector, Salem District, Salem reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 129.
(3.) PER contra, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate contended that the respondents had taken all necessary steps to serve the notice as contemplated under 4(2) of the Act. It is contended that the notice was sent through registered post with acknowledgement due and the same is evident from the despatch register maintained by the respondent office affixing the postal receipt in respect of sending the notice to the petitioner herein and as per such register, the said notice was despatched to the petitioner on 12.02.2008. Therefore it is contended that there is no contravention of the provision under Section 4(2) of the Act. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that by way of precaution, the respondents also affixed a notice on a placard in the lands of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate produced a document prepared by the Tahsildar in order to substantiate the above contention. The learned Government Advocate contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in initiating the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioner herein and the respondents strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules and Act and they have not contravened any of the provisions of the Rules and the Act. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly perused the entire materials available on record and also perused the counter affidavit as well as the additional counter affidavit apart from the affidavit filed by the petitioner herein.;