Mariappa Gounder vs The District Collector and The Special Tahsildar (ADW)

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 10-1-1997

initiated under the State Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for provision of house sites for the Adi Dravidas.

According to the petitioner, his father Chenniappa Gounder was the owner of an extent of 1.85.0 hectare in Survey No.104/3 Alankurichi

Majra, Vedasanthur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. His father died on 23-12-1992 leaving behind the petitioner and three others.

A notice in Form-1 under Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme and Rules was received by the petitioner

and the notice was addressed in the name of Chenniappa Gounder. Immediately, an objection dated 19-1-1997 was sent to the respondents for

bringing to the notice of the respondents that his father was dead. He has also furnished the details of the legal heirs of his father, enclosing a copy

of the legal heir certificate. Even though the said objection was received, according to the petitioner, without application of mind, the respondents

have sent a further notice under Form-3 for an award enquiry to be conducted on 11-3-1997. In that notice also, the name of the legal heirs have

not been mentioned. The petitioner contends that even though his father died on 23-12-1992 and the same having been brought to the notice of the

first respondent, the subsequent notice for award enquiry was not sent in the name of the legal heirs. Hence, the above writ petition.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the revenue records, the land stands in the name of Chenniappa Gounder

and the legal heirs have not sought for any transfer of patta in their names. The same was admitted by the statement of the petitioner on 29-1-1997

at the enquiry contemplated u/s 4(2) of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the following points:-

Notices have been sent in the name of dead person. Even after the objections were raised by the legal heirs, the subsequent notices for award

enquiry was also issued only in the name of dead person and not in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be

sustained.

There is no proper application of mind by the Collector as regards the objections raised by the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner has not sought for any mutation of the revenue records and that notices have been

issued only on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. The Collector, while passing the order, has taken into account the recommendations

of the Tahsildar and hence, there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act or principles of natural justice. The learned Government

Pleader further contends that both for the enquiry u/s 4(2) and for the award enquiry, the petitioner has appeared and therefore, no prejudice was

caused to him.

I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is true that on the issue of the notice in the name of a dead person, I agree that the revenue

cannot be blamed in view of the fact that the petitioner has not taken prompt steps for the mutation of the revenue records. The Government can

go only by way of the entries in the revenue records and if the existing owners of the land do not take any steps to have the revenue records

corrected in their names, there can be no blame on the revenue for not issuing the notice in the name of the existing owners. Further, it is seen that

both at the stage of enquiry u/s 4(2) of the Act as well as the award enquiry, the petitioner has appeared and filed his objection and hence, no

prejudice is caused in the context of the notices not being in the name of the present owners.

However, I am inclined to sustain the objection of the petitioner as regards the non application of mind of the respondents. This is one more

case of a cyclostyled order being issued mechanically by the Collector without any reference to the objections by the petitioner. A perusal of

Form-2 order issued by the Collector at page 135 of the file dated 14-2-1997 discloses that there is absolutely no consideration of the objections

by the petitioner independently by the Collector. There is not even any reference to the communication of the Special Tahsildar dated 14-2-1997.

It is only in the subsequent order dated 27-2-1997, the Collector has sanctioned the proposals for the value of Rs.1,97,253/- and as seen at page

No.137 of the file, there is a reference to the communication of the Special Tahsildar dated 14-2-1997. But, when the order was passed under

Form-2 directing the acquisition of the land, there is neither any consideration of the objection by the petitioner, nor even a reference to the

Tahsildar''s communication dated 14-2-1997. Therefore, as stated earlier, this is once again, one more case of total non application of mind and

acquisition orders being issued in a cyclostyled manner without any consideration of the objections of the land owners.

It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that such mechanical approach by the revenue, while taking away the valuable rights of the

petitioner, cannot be sustained. The Collectors are the appropriate authorities to pass the order of acquisition and such manner of passing of

mechanical orders without taking note of the objections and consideration of the same cannot at all be appreciated.

With the result, the petitioners are entitled the succeed and the impugned notifications are quashed with liberty to proceed afresh only in

accordance with law. No costs.