AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Raman, J.—The petitioner is the owner of the lands in S. Nos. 58-1A, 58-1B, 58-2A1 in Thattanpalli Village Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri. The petitioner was not served any notice with regard to acquisition. The petitioner came to understand that a notice was issued, purporting to be under Rule-5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act- Act 31 of 1978. The mandatory requirement of notice before publication has not been complied with. The petitioner is a poor agriculturist, depending upon the land for his livelihood. There is a failure to comply with the procedure. On account of the same, a valuable right of the petitioner has been affected. The failure to follow the provisions is thoroughly bad in law. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for the records relating to 4(1) Notification made in Na.Ka. No. 55942/97 (k) issued under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, published in the Dharmapuri District Gazette, Extraordinary No. 70 dated 11/11/1997 relating to the petitioner''s land in S. Nos. 58-1A, 58-1B, 58-2A1, measuring an extent of 0.98.5 hectares and situate in B Thattanapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits two main contentions. The first is that there is a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions and that no notice was given as required under Section-4(1). The other contention is that it is the only land belonging to the petitioner and it is an agricultural land and that there are other lands that are available for the authorities. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act-31/78 under which the acquisition has been made, reads as follows:
"Before publishing notice under Sub section (1), the District Collector or an officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who in the opinion of the District Collector or the Officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why it should not be acquired.
The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2) pass such orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown.
Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. After considering such report, the District Collector may pass such orders, as he may deem fit.
Therefore a notice, is contemplated as a prerequisite for a valid acquisition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no notice was given nor any enquiry was made. Learned Government Advocate produced the relevant file. Section-4 clearly provides either the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector to call upon the owner of the land to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. If the show cause notice issued under sub-section (2), the District Collector -himself has to pass an order. Where any officer is authorised by the District Collector, the officer shall send a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause and after considering such report, the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit.
The file does not contain anything to show that the District Collector had authorised the Harijan Welfare Tahsildar to initiate proceedings. There is neither any order by the Collector nor there is any report by the Officer authorised by the Collector. Apart from that Rule 3 clearly provides that the person shall be individually served. But in this case, we find that there is no service at all individually.
Individual service means personal service. An individual is only one entity, distinct, being a single one and when spoken of human kind, means one man or woman. To individualise is to single out from the species. The Rule employs the word "individually". The dictionary meaning of individually is personally; in an individual capacity, in a distinctive manner one by one not collectively. We have to take it that the legislature knew what it meant when it used to expression "Individually".
Here, we find that 4(1) notice has not been served upon the petitioner individually. It is simply stated that notices were refused by the parties concerned and therefore, they were affixed. There is no provision for service by affixture. The Act is expropriatory. The land of an individual is sought to be acquired by the Government. When it is so, all procedural precautions must be strictly adhered to. There is nothing on record to show that any attempt was made to serve the notice, individually. There is neither any affidavit by the person who was entrusted to serve the notice nor any statement from the alleged witnesses to show that there was an attempt to effect service personally and there was a refusal on the part of the individuals concerned. There is no attempt to serve by Registered post.
Service by affixture can be resorted to only as a last mode. When the Rules provide specifically that there must be individual service, yet there is no attempt made to serve the notice individually. The Form III Notice found in the file mentions the names of both Lakshmiah and Uchappa. The address is given as Thiru. Lakshmiah, Son of Munusamy Rajamanickam Thotti, Malur Taluk, Kolar district, Karnataka. The notice states that it is sent to the persons concerned through Messenger. It is not known how, for persons who are residing in a different State, service was effected by- Messenger by affixture without any endorsement from the concerned Village Officer or any responsible person of that locality. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with at all. Hence, I have to hold that the proceeding is liable to be quashed for violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. In as much as the mandatory provision with regard to service of notice is breached and as there is no order passed by the District Collector authorising some other Officer to acquire and as there is any report by such officer, it has to be held that the entire proceeding is invalid in law and has to be quashed.
There is yet another flaw. It is stated that the petitioner owns only this land and he is a poor agriculturist. It is not explained as to why the only source of living for the petitioner should be snatched away from him by such acquisition. The egalitarian principle is to raise the level of everyone. But to snatch away the only property of an individual to benefit others cannot be said to be an admirable public policy. What is proposed to be acquired is an agricultural land, which is claimed by the petitioner as the only land belonging to him. While so, to take away that land from the individual, there must be substantial and strong grounds. Merely because the Act provides with powers of acquisition, the authorities concerned cannot simply acquire the lands of everyone without taking into consideration the hardship that is likely to be caused to such persons. If the person is a big landlord or owns substantial properties or a rich person, may be, acquisition of the land belonging to him can be understood and appreciated. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that it is his only land and he depends upon the same for his livelihood. To snatch away the said land will be definitely a blow to the individual. No doubt, to provide house sites to poor Harijans is a noble cause and for the purpose of which, the Act has been enacted. But, a noble object should not be achieved by ignoble acts. To dislodge a poor to settle another poor cannot be a sound principle of social justice. Therefore, taking an overall picture of the matter, I am convinced that this is a fit case, where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. There is a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions in that, that no attempt was made to serve the notice individually or personally. A flippant attitude is adopted in the matter of service. The compliance is more a farce. There is no order passed by the Collector as required u/s 4 authorising the particular officer to initiate proceedings for acquisition. Further, the petitioner belongs to the class of people, who are economically weak. When he has to depend solely on the land for his livelihood, which is an agricultural land, to take away the same is really a harsh step. It is not as though the Government cannot find suitable house sites for the poor Harijans of that village or in that neighbourhood. There is a definite assertion made in the affidavit stating that there are other lands available for the Government in the village. This is not controverted. Therefore, taking into consideration, all these aspects. I am of the view that the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed since there is a clear contravention and breach of the mandatory requirements. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, quashing the Notification made u/s 4(1) in Na.Ka.55942/97 (k) dated 30/10/1997, issued under Act 31/78, published in Dharmapuri District Gazette extraordinary dated 11/11/1997 relating to the petitioner''s lands in S. No. 581A, 58-1B and 58-2A1. Consequently the connected WMP. will stand closed.