A.V. Chinnakrishna Reddiyar vs The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, The District Collector and The Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare)

P. Sathasivam, J.—The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.02.2002, in and by which the learned

Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that though a detailed representation has been made on 31.03.1997 willing

to provide alternate land, the same has not been considered by the Government inspite of the specific direction by this Court.

We perused the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner as well as the order passed by the Government, which are available in the typed

set of papers filed in the writ appeal. While considering the representation, the Government, after finding that the alternate land suggested by the

appellant/writ petitioner is not suitable for construction of houses for the Harijans, declined to accept the same. No doubt, in the impugned letter

dated 03.05.1999, the Government has stated that it was not agreeable by the beneficiaries. However, it is clear that apart from the fact that the

alternate land is not suitable for construction of houses for the Harijans, the Government, after getting the report from the officers, has concluded

that the land is surrounded by bushes and there is one Church within the same area which cannot be cleared. After satisfying itself based on the

materials placed, the Government ultimately rejected the representation made by the appellant/writ petitioner.

Though the learned single Judge has not adverted to the reasonings of the Government, on going through the impugned order, particularly, in the

light of the representation, we are unable to accept the claim made by the appellant. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the said

conclusion. Further, it is not in dispute that in a matter like this, it is the Government which has to decide whether the alternate land is suitable or

acceptable. Based on the report, a decision was taken by the Government that the alternate site offered by the appellant/writ petitioner is not

acceptable, in addition to other reasons mentioned therein. Hence, we are of the view that the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. The

writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.