IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.NO.1089 of 2000 and C.M.P.NO.9508 of 2000 K.V.Muthusamy .... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Bhavani Taluk 2.The District Collector Erode Distirct, Erode. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 20.12.1999 passed by the single Judge in W.P.No.14125 of 1999, writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in D.R.O.Order No.12588/96, dated 14.2.96 publishing in Erode District Gazette Notification No.7, dated 22.2.1996 of an extent of 1.54 acres in R.S.No.46/1 and R.S.No.46/2 of Koothampoondi Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.G.Muniratnam For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugham,Spl.G.P. (Writs) JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J. In this Writ Appeal arising out of dismissal of Writ Petition in W.P.No.14125 of 1999, the Appellant challenges 4(1) notification dated 22.2.1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for short, "Act No.31 of 1978"). 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is the owner of 1.54 acres of land in S.Nos.46/1 and 46/2 of Koothampoondi village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The lands of Appellant were acquired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars in Koothampoondi village. Section 4(2) notice was served upon the Appellant and the Appellant had also sent his written objections. Thereafter Section 4(1) notification was issued on 22.2.1996. Enquiry was conducted and Appellant also appeared in the enquiry and written objection was also sent by him. After conducting enquiry, the award was passed in Award No.38 of 1996 dated 25.3.1996. After the award was passed, the Appellant filed W.P.No.14125 of 1999 challenging Section 4(1) notification on the ground that as per Section 4(2) of Act No.31 of 1978, the Respondents should have served a show cause notice in Form I as per Rule 3(i) and that the Appellant was not served with Form I - show cause notice. The Appellant mainly placed reliance upon report of District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 and that the District Revenue Officer has recommended for dropping the proposal to acquire lands in Survey Nos.46/1 and 46/2 and directed initiation of acquisition proceedings in Survey No.18/1 stating that the Appellant's land is not suitable. 3. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the District Revenue Officer has no authority to pass any such order and even if any such order has been issued the same has to be ignored as one without jurisdiction and void. The learned single Judge further observed that the lands were acquired not only for providing house sites but also for making provision for burial ground facilities. Pointing out that there was no infirmity in the notification and that all the proceedings had been completed and that award was passed on 25.3.1996 the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 4. Challenging the order of learned single Judge Mr.T.Muniratnam, learned counsel for Appellant contended that as per Section 4(2) of the Act No.31 of 1978, the Respondent ought to have issued a show cause notice in Form I as per Rule 3(i) of the Rules and that the Appellant was not served with Form I - show cause notice and hence the acquisition proceedings of the Respondent is in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act and Rule 3(i). The learned counsel would further submit that Form III was not published in the locality and without complying with the provisions of the Act, the award was passed on 25.3.1996. Laying emphasis upon the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 the learned counsel submitted that the District Revenue Officer has directed dropping of proceedings and directed initiation of acquisition proceedings in S.No.18/1 and the learned single Judge failed to note the proceedings of District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 and learned single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. 5. We have heard Mr.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader. The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the District Revenue Officer has no authority to go into the merits of the satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector, and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that further action was initiated to issue pattas to house-less poor Adi dravidar people and 26 beneficiaries eligible to get house site pattas were identified and the list was also approved by the District Welfare Officer of Adi Dravidars on 24.12.2001 and because of interim order the entire proceedings are now kept in abeyance. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the provisions of the Act were fully complied with and the Appellant himself appeared for enquiry and he cannot challenge the 4(1) notification after passing of the award. 6. The main grievance of the Appellant is that as per Section 4 (2) of Act No.31 of 1978, the Respondent ought to have issued a show cause notice in Form I and that the Appellant was not served with Form I - show cause notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 obliges the District Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf to call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so authorised, is interested in such land to show cause why it should not be acquired. As per Rule 3(i) of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979, the District Collector or the Officer authorised by him shall serve a show cause notice in Form I and Section 4(2) individually on the owner or all persons interested in the land to be acquired. 7. By perusal of the file produced before us, it is seen that Form I notice was served upon the Appellant on 3.1.1996 and Appellant has also signed acknowledging receipt of Form I notice. In the award, it is clearly stated that Section 4(2) notice – Form I was served upon the land owner – Appellant. On receipt of Section 4(2) notice, the Appellant had also sent his representation/objections dated 19.1.1996. In the said representation/objection, the Appellant has clearly admitted the receipt of Section 4(2) notice. The Appellant also appeared for enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. During enquiry, the Appellant has stated that he is a small agriculturist and that he and his family are depending upon agriculture and requested for dropping of the proceedings. After serving of Form I notice and after due enquiry the award was passed in Award No.38 of 1996 dated 25.3.1996. There is no force in the contention of the Appellant that he was not served with Section 4(2) notice. 8. The Appellant mainly relies upon the proceedings of District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 in which the District Revenue Officer accepted the representation of the Appellant and ordered dropping of proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.46/1 and 46/2 and directing initiation of acquisition proceedings in survey No.18/1. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that as per Explanation to Section 16, "District Collector shall include the District Revenue Officer", https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who can also exercise the powers of District Collector and in view of the proceedings of District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 the 4(1) notification and award has to be quashed. 9. Section 16 deals with delegation of functions. As per Section 16, the Government may by notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on them by Act 31 of 1978 be exercised or discharged by the District Collector. As per Explanation to Section 16, "District Collector" shall include District Revenue Officer.". By perusal of file, it is seen that Form II- notification under Section 4(1) of Act No.31 of 1978 was published in Periyar District Gazette dated 22.2.1996. The said notification was issued by the District Collector, which is to the effect that exercising powers under Section 4(1) of the Act the Collector of Periyar District directed that the lands in S.No.46/1 and 2 be acquired under the provisions of Act No.31 of 1978. As per the provisions of Section 4(1), it is the District Collector, who must be satisfied that the land is required to be acquired. When the District Collector is satisfied regarding acquisition of Survey Nos.46/1 and 2 and also published Form II notification in the District Gazette, the District Revenue Officer has no authority to issue any such order and even if any such order has been issued, the said order has to be ignored as one without authority. 10. It is also seen from the file that preliminary valuation report valuing the acquired land in S.Nos.46/1 and 2 – 0.62.5 hectares at Rs.51,120/- was sent to District Revenue Officer by the Special Tahsildar on 4.3.1991 and the same was approved by the District Revenue Officer for acquisition of an extent of 1.54 acres in Survey Nos.46/1 and 2 and Award No.38 of 1996 dated 25.3.1996 was passed. By his proceedings dated 26.3.1996, the District Revenue Officer has approved the preliminary valuation report i.e., Rs.51,120/-. The amount of Rs.51,120/- was deposited in Revenue Deposit by challan. 11. After completion of all the proceedings and after money was deposited to the credit of revenue deposit, on the representation given by the Appellant, District Revenue Officer has passed the order on 14.7.1996 suggesting that Survey No.18/1 of Koothampoondi village would be suitable for acquisition for issuing house site pattas to Adi Dravidars. Suggesting initiation of proceedings for Survey No.18/1, District Revenue Officer has directed the dropping of acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.46/1 and 2. 12. The learned single Judge held that the order of District Revenue Officer Na.Ka.44500/96-T2 are dated 4.7.1996 is without jurisdiction for the reasons:- (i) District Revenue Officer has no authority to go into the merits of the decision taken by the District Collector and (ii) that the lands were acquired not only for providing house sites, but also for making provisions for burial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground facilities. 13. In MURARI VS. UNION OF INDIA ((1997) 1 SCC 15), the Supreme Court held that withdrawal from acquisition must be by a notification denotifying the acquisition of land. In the absence of such notification mere communication of Government sent to the landowners purporting to be an order under Section 48 is invalid and acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on that basis and even assuming that there was release of certain areas of and belonging to certain landowners, the entire notification could not be rendered invalid. 14. As held in LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT ((1998) 4 SCC 387), withdrawal from acquisition has to be notified. A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. Applying the ratio of the above decision, in the instant case, to withdraw from acquisition, notification ought to have been made by the District Collector. Mere proceedings of the District Revenue Officer is not sufficient for withdrawal from acquisition. 15. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that as per Explanation to Section 16, the 'District Collector' shall include the 'District Revenue Officer' and when District Revenue Officer has passed the order dropping the acquisition proceedings the authority was not justified in proceeding with the matter and learned single Judge ought to have quashed 4(1) notification and the award. As discussed earlier, Form II notification was notified in the District Gazette by the District Collector. When the District Collector satisfied as to the acquisition of land, by his proceedings, District Revenue Officer cannot upset the satisfaction of the District Collector and the entire proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings of District Revenue Officer dated 14.7.1996 was neither reported to the District Collector nor a copy was marked to the District Collector. If the Explanation to Section 16 is to be stretched to such an extent that where the notification was made by the District Collector and District Revenue Officer has got the power of withdrawal from the requisition, there would be no purpose in vesting the powers with the District Collector under Section 4(1). We are of the view that the learned single was right in saying that the order of the District Revenue Officer is without authority. 16. Before the learned single Judge it was also reported that the Appellant has got eight acres of land besides the lands that are sought to be acquired i.e., S.Nos.46/1 and 46/2 and while so the order of the District Revenue Officer observing that the Appellant is a small agriculturist cannot be sustained. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the said order of District Revenue Officer relied upon by the Appellant is without authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. After dismissal of the writ petition, action was initiated to issue H.S.D.pattas to house-less poor Adi Dravidar people. 26 beneficiaries eligible to get pattas were identified and the list was also said to have been approved by the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer on 24.12.2001. It was also stated before us that action was taken to make necessary changes in the village records to prepare layout sketches and in the mean time the Writ Appeal came to be filed and interim order as obtained on 17.1.2002. When steps were already taken to issue pattas to houseless poor Adi Dravidar people, it would be far fetched to contend that Section 4(1) notification is not a valid one. More so, after the award was passed. 18. We do not find any infirmity in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Finding that there is no infirmity in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any reasons warranting interference with the order of the learned single Judge and this Writ Appeal is bound to fail. 19. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P. is also dismissed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Copy to: 1.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Bhavani Taluk 2.The District Collector Erode Distirct, Erode +1 C.C. To Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate – SR No.22515 +1 C.C to Government Pleader – SR No.22578 W.A.No.1089 of 2000 7.04.2010 VSV [CO] KV 26/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/