The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravida Welfare, Coimbatore and The District Collector, Coimbatore vs R. Manickammal, L. Bathavatsal, L. Venkatapathy, L. Jegannathan, Geetha Vijayakumar and Yasoda Venkatapathy

These Writ Appeals have been preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions relating to the power of the

Government to intervene in the acquisitions made under the State Act 31/1978.

2.The lands comprised in S.Nos.287B, 289, 291/1, 288, 290, 291/2 situate at Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore have been acquired for public

purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. Firstly the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition Act of 1894 were invoked and a draft

notification u/s 4(1) was gazetted in the year 1989 . The said proceedings were questioned in the Writ Petition Nos. 1172 1 to 11723 and 2685 of

1991 and by judgment dated 27.11.1995 this Court quashed the said proceedings on the ground that Special Enactment i.e., Tamil Nadu Act 31

of 1978 is applicable and not the Central Act. The said judgment had become final and then the Government directed the Collector to initiate land

acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 titled as the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978.

3.Pursuant to the same, the Collector has initiated proceedings and issued draft notification u/s 4(1), which has been gazetted on 17.7.1997.

Objections were raised against the acquisition and the Collector has made an enquiry into the same. The Collector has opined that the value of the

land was high and prohibitive and it was not desirable to acquire the lands for the public purposes notified. But the Secretary to Government has

intervened in the matter and issued a mandate to the Collector to go ahead with the acquisition, in spite of the report of the Collector to the contra.

A question was raised before the learned single Judge challenging the jurisdiction of the Government to intervene on the ground that it was for the

Collector to exercise the said power and the Collector having been satisfied that the lands should not be acquired, the Government ought not to

have interfered in the matter.

4.We have perused the scheme of State Act 31 of 1978. The scheme of State Act differs from that of Central Act. In the Central Act the

Government is the authority to exercise the power, and the Government by notification can delegate the functions to any authority to perform the

functions under the Act and among the authority so delegated, the Collector also is one of the same. The State Act is completely different as the

Governmental intervention is not at all contemplated and the donee of the power is the Collector himself and not anybody else . Section 4 of the

State Act reads as follows:-

4.Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the (appropriate Government) that land in

any locality (is needed or) is likely to be needed for any public purpose (or for a company) a notification to that effect shall be published in the

Official Gazette (and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language) and the Collector

shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such

publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification).

2.Thereupon it shall be lawful for any Officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and

workmen,-

-to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;

-to dig or bore into the sub-soil;

-to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;

-to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;

-to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and

-where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part

of any standing crop, fence or jungle:

Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of

the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days notice in writing of his intention to do so.

There is no other provision excepting the above provision empowering any authority to deal with the acquisition. The provision is absolute in so

many words that if the Collector is satisfied that the lands should be acquired, he will acquire the land and then when a notification is issued, the

land vests absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances as contemplated u/s 5 of the Act. A decision to acquire a land by the

Collector has to be exercised only by the Collector by application of his mind independently and the Legislature did not provide any power of

delegation. This Legislature did not even reserve any power in the State to have a supervisory role as is provided in the Central Act. In view of the

amending Act 68/84, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (Central Act), the Governmental role is increased, as, before passing the award, there is

every right for the Government to probe into the award and direct the Land Acquisition Officer to modify the award. Even with regard to the

finality of the acquisition, the report u/s 5A has to be sent to the Government and even if the report is against the acquisition, the Government can

overrule the said decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and direct the publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act. Such contingency is not

provided in the State Act. It is well settled law that when the Legislature did not name any other authority for the exercise of powers and names

only a particular authority, only that particular authority has to exercise the power and nobody else. In this view of the matter, the learned single

Judge has rightly held that the Governmental intervention was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. For the reasons mentioned supra, we concur

with the said orders of the learned single Judge and dismiss these Writ Appeals. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps are also dismissed. No costs.