IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.4.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.5108 of 1999 & W.M.P.No.7461 of 1999 Ramaiya .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Special Tahsildar, ADW & Land Acquisition Officer, Aranthangi. 2. The District Collector, Pudukottai. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.N.Ravi Shankar Vallatharasu For respondents: Mrs.D.Geetha, Addl.G.P. ORDER The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the Notification published in District Gazette, Pudukkottai, dated 29.9.1997 bearing No.Na.Ka.Q3/52637/97 and quash the Notification made therein in respect of the petitioner's land in Survey No.277/19 measuring 0.45.0 hectares in Pallavarayan Pathai Village, Alangudi Taluk. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land comprised in S.No.277/19 to an extent of 0.60.5 hectares. According to him, he was served with a notice in Form-I under The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978, which is as per Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979, which is consonance with Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978 and that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.11.1995. The petitioner has given objection to the first respondent-Special Tahsildar on 5.12.1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter, according to the petitioner, there was no communication. 3. According to the petitioner, in February 1997, he received another notice under Form-I directing for enquiry to be conducted on 24.2.1997. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 24.2.1997 and he has also filed his written objection on the said date. As per his objections, there are other alternative 'natham' lands available for the benefit of Harijans in S.No.312 which is adjacent property, that he has grown eucalyptus trees which are valuable to an extent of Rs.1.5 lakhs, that he belongs to MBC community, that he has no other land and that he is a small farmer. According to the petitioner, after the enquiry conducted on 24.2.1997, there was no communication and later, he came to know that Section 4(1) Notification has been issued by the second respondent-District Collector on 29.9.1997. 4. Section 4(1) Notification is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, including that the second respondent has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in proper perspective and that as per the Notification issued under Section 4(1), it is seen that the same is to the satisfaction of the State Government, which is not the purport of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that even though it is stated under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 that it is to the satisfaction of the District Collector, Section 4(1) Notification is issued in the format prescribed under the Rules framed under Act 31 of 1978. As per the format prescribed under the Rules, which is Form-II, stated to have been prescribed in accordance with Rule 3(ii) of the Rules framed under Act 31 of 1978. In the said Form-II it is made clear that, "WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu ...." and the said Form- II, as prescribed in the Rules, had been used by the respondents and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the same. Learned Addl.G.P. has also produced the files relating to the land acquisition proceedings. 6. A perusal of the files produced by the learned Addl.G.P. shows that in fact, the second respondent-District Collector in his proceedings dated 24.9.1997, while considering the recommendations of the Special Tahsildar, Aranthangi, namely the first respondent, has in detail explained and considered each and every one of the objections raised by the petitioner including the amount of compensation relating to the property and eucalyptus trees, which according to the petitioner is worth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about Rs.1.5 lakhs. After detailed consideration, the second respondent-District Collector has explicitly rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter directed Section 4(1) Notification to be published. The said order of the District Collector, which runs to four pages, makes it clear that the District Collector has applied his mind and has arrived at the conclusion to his satisfaction that the acquisition of the lands in question are required for the Harijan Welfare Scheme. Ultimately, in paragraph 4 of the said order, the District Collector has stated as follows: @4/ epy clikahsh;fspd; Ml;nrgizfs; epybkLg;g[ mYtyhpd; fUj;J Mfpait ed;F ghprPypf;fg;gl;ld/ My';Fo jhYfh gy;ytuhad;gj;ij fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s tPlw;w Mjp jpuhtpl kf;fspd; tPl;Lkid njit Fwpj;Jk; ed;F Ma;t [ bra;ag;gl;ljpy;. kpff; Fiwthd mst[ epyk; kl;Lnk ifafg;gLj;jg;gLtjhYk; Mjp jpuhtpl kf;fspd; mog;gil trjpf;F Kf;fpaj;Jtk; juntz;oapUg;gjhYk; jdp tl;lhl;rpahpd; ghpe;Jiufs; Vw;fg;gl;L jkpH;ehL Mjp jpuhtpl eyj;jpl;l epybkLg;g[r ; rl;lk; 31-1978d; fPH; gphpt[ 4(3)(gp)apy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhu';fspd; fPH; epy clikahsh;fspd; Ml;nrgizfs; epuhfhpj;J Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/@ 7. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, presided over by Justice P.K.Misra, in the decision reported in 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 (Pari.R. vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai), by applying the principles laid down in that decision, to the facts of the case, as seen from the files, it is a classic instance where the District Collector has in fact applied his mind and the files produced before this Court make the same very clear and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the opinion arrived at by the District Collector on the basis of the report submitted by the first respondent-Special Tahsildar. 8. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 4(1) Notification shows that the same is to the satisfaction of the State Government, it is true that a reference to the impugned Section 4(1) Notification, dated 29.9.1997 states that in clear terms "Mjp jpuhtplh; eyj; jpl;lj;jpw;fhf mjhtJ moapw;fz;l bray;nehf;fj;jpw;fhf njitg;gLfpwbjd;W jkpH;ehL muRf;Fj; njhd;Wtjhy; /////". As I have enumerated above, the files make it clear that the District Collector has in fact satisfied himself even though in the impugned Notification, it is stated as if the State Government is satisfied. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Law is well settled that it is always the District Collector's satisfaction required and not the satisfaction of any person other than the District Collector, unlike in the case of the Central Land Acquisition Act, as held by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Chief Justice B.Subhashan Reddy, as he then was, in the decision reported in 2002 (2) C.T.C. 1 (The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) vs. R.Manickammal). 10. As far as the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the said Notification in Section 4(1) is issued in the format prescribed under the Rules as per Form-II, wherein it is stated that, "WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu ..... " and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the District Collector, on the facts and circumstances of the case, since I have already arrived at a conclusion that as per the files produced by the learned Addl.G.P., the District Collector has applied his mind exhaustively, the Form does not take away the application of mind, which has already been, in fact, made by the District Collector. In any event, the reference "WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " in Form-II has no relationship with Rule 3(ii) of the Rules framed under Act 31 of 1978 at all. Rule 3(ii) of the Rules states as follows: "Rule 3(ii): The District Collector, if, after passing such orders as required by sub- sections (2) and (3) of section 4, is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land, notice in Form II to that effect shall be published in the District Gazette." Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 3 makes it clear that if the District Collector is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land, Form-II be published and therefore, the mere words "WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " in Form-II which are not contemplated in the Rule, does not make the proceedings in this case invalid. 11. In my considered view, when once the Form prescribed under the Rules, cannot supersede the Rule, and when the Rule nowhere contemplates that the State Government should be satisfied about the acquisition, the Rule in consonance with the Act, namely Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978, makes it clear that it is always to the satisfaction of the District Collector and therefore, the words "WHEREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu ... " in Form-II, have to be simply ignored as non- est. This was also the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court presided over by Justice P.Sathasivam, as he then was, in the decision reported in 2006 (4) C.T.C. 785 (Sharp Tools vs. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State of Tamil Nadu). Of course, the Full Bench in that case was considering about Form-B prescribed under the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that proceedings, while conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Central Act, Rule 4(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, framed as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), contemplates that after the objections are received within the time prescribed after issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification, the Collector shall fix the date of enquiry in order to hear the objections and that notice for hearing is directed to be issued in Form-B. The said Form-B prescribed as per the said Rules contemplates a provision directing the objectors to lodge any objections within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Having found that such 15 days is not the requisition as per the Rule 4(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, and there is no question of any further objections to be filed by the land owners at the time of Section 5-A enquiry, the Full Bench of this Court, presided over Justice P.Sathasivam, as he then was, in the said decision, held that 15 days' time prescribed in Form-B has to be ignored as non-est, on the basis that the format prescribed under the Rules, cannot supersede the Rules as well as the Act. 12. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Full Bench, in respect of Form-II under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the words, "WHREAS it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu .... " are to be treated as non-est and have to be ignored. In any event, as I have stated earlier, on the factual matrix in this case, I am able to see that the District Collector who is the authority competent under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978, has applied his mind and passed the orders and therefore, there is no illegality in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents. 13. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. is closed. Cs Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Special Tahsildar, ADW & Land Acquisition Officer, Aranthangi. 2. The District Collector, Pudukottai. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.19444 + 1 cc to Mr. N. Ravishankar Vallatharasu, Advocate SR No. 18941 JP(CO) SR/10.4.2008 W.P.No.5108 of 1999 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/