AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioners seek for a writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent u/s 4 (1) of the
Land Acquisition Act 18 of 1995 in G.O. (3D) No.331, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 14.05.1992 and in Declaration u/s 6
made in G.O> (3D) No. 721, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.10.1993 and quash the same.
The petitioners are the owners of the lands in Survey No. 153 of an extent of 1.12 acres and survey No.154 to an extent of 1.78 acres, and a
total extent of 2.90 acres in Mangalam Village. Originally the lands belonged to the joint family of the petitioners. Though the lands are classified in
the Revenue Records as dry lands they are punja lands. The respondents under the pretext of providing house sites to 50 Adi Dravidars residing at
Agrahaputhur and Chinnaputhur initiated proceedings under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are given to understand that
the said Notification was published in a daily called ''Makkal Kural'', Madras Edition dated 11.06.1992 and another daily called ''Pirpagal''
Coimbatore Edition on the same day on 11.06.1992. The petitioners contend that so far as the Makkal Kural is concerned, the Notification was
given only in Madras Edition and the other daily ''Pirpagal'' has no circulation at all to the knowledge of the petitioners and the said paper has no
circulation within Coimbatore District. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the said newspapers'' publication. The petitioners coming to know
of this acquisition, filed their objections on 14.12.1992. The notice dated 26.11.1992 under the revised Rule 4 has been served on the petitioners
and it is only in furtherance of the said notice, the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation. The petitioners further submit that in view of the
specific provisions of Rule 4, objections have to be forwarded to the Acquisitioning Department and only after ascertaining their views on the
objections, it should be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter only, fresh enquiry will have to be conducted. But to the surprise of the
petitioners, no further enquiry was conducted. It is only when the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.04.1993 was received by the
petitioners, it was made known that the objections of the petitioners were over-ruled. Therefore, there was clear violation of statutory provisions of
the Act and Rules. It is further stated that there are Government poromboke lands within the vicinity and if only objections have been forwarded to
the Requisitioning Department, the objections of the petitioners would have been considered in proper manner. Hence, the above writ petition.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Tamil Dailies, namely, Makkal Kuarl and Pirpagal have proper circulation in
Coimbatore District. The allegation that they have no circulation in Coimbatore District was denied. The Notification u/s 4 (1) of the Act has also
been widely published in the locality. The objections of the petitioners were received and all the objections were considered. The Special Tahsildar
(Adi Dravidar Welfare) is also the Land Acquisition Officer and the objections filed by the petitioners were properly considered by the competent
authority. The objections of the petitioners were found irrelevant on the facts and the Administrative Officer rejected the claims of the land owners.
With reference to the non communication of the remarks of the Acquiring Department, the respondents submitted that the Special Tahsildar,
Tiruppur is empowered to function and discharge the duties of the Collectors of the District in the matter of Land Acquisition for Adi Dravidars
and Tribal Welfare Department and there is no need to convey objections to the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department.
Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the publications made in two daily newspapers
have no proper circulation in Coimbatore District. ""Makkal Kuaral"" is published only in Madras Edition has and no circulation in Coimbatore. The
other newspaper ""Pirpagal"" has no circulation in Coimbatore. In this context learned counsel relies on the judgment of F. M. Ibrahim Kallifulla., J.
In Arumugha Mudaliar v. State of Tamilnadu and another reported in (2002 (1) CTC 28). The learned Judge, after considering the contentions,
held that no materials have been produced to establish as to how the newspaper ''Pirpagal'' was widely circulated in the locality.
In the context of publication of newspapers, it is necessary to bear in mind the statutory requirements u/s 4 (1) of the Act. It is specifically stated
that the newspapers circulation in the locality is concerned atleast one should be in the regional language. The purpose of effecting publication in the
newspapers having circulation in the locality cannot be treated as a mere formality. It is not known as to why the revenue authorities concerned,
inspite of frequent orders by this Court in several judgments, continue to render the statutory requirement as a farce and carry out the publication in
newspapers having little or no circulation in the locality. There should be purposeful compliance of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act and it
cannot be reduced to an empty formality. The Government is expected to cause publication in newspapers having wide circulation in the locality.
The fact that the petitioners subsequently filed their objections, cannot result in holding that there was no prejudice. The requirement to cause
publication in the newspapers is fundamental and the statutory requirements cannot be compared with the requirement of giving personal notice to
interested persons. It is only in the case of requiring a personal notice to interested persons, the question of prejudice would be relevant. If
requirement to cause publication in newspapers can be ignored in the event of the owner filing objections, on the same reasoning even publication
in gazette can be ignored. The object of public notice u/s 4 is different from the notice required to be served u/s 5-A to interested persons.
Therefore, in this case, there being no proper compliance of the basic and fundamental requirement u/s 4 (1) of the Act, namely, there being no
proper publication in the newspapers, having proper circulation in the area, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
In the context of the objections, Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules (G.O. No. 892) Revenue dated 11.06.1981 is concerned,
the stand of the Department is that there is no need to convey the objections to Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. This defence is probably based
on the rules as it existed prior to the G.O. By virtue of G.O. 996 Revenue dated 19.05.1976, an explanation was added to Rule 3B of the earlier
rules holding that for the purpose of the said rule, the Revenue Department shall be deemed to include the Department of Harijan Welfare and
Backward Class at the District level. But, now, after the issuance of G.O.No. 892 Revenue dated 11.06.1991, the said distinction has been
removed. Therefore the obligation to forward the objections to the Acquiring Department and the communication of the views of Acquiring
Department to the Land owners, is mandatory. The said requirements have not been admittedly complied with in the present case and hence, the
petitioner is entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, however, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh only in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.