D. Murugesan, J.@mdashThis writ appeal is directed at the instance of the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu questioning the order in the writ petition. By order dated 20.11.2004, the writ petition came to be allowed and the notification dated 19.12.95 issued u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) (for short, "the Act") was set aside. The writ appeal arises under the following circumstances:
The respondent is the owner of agricultural land in S. Nos. 16/2B, 16/2E, 16/2T etc. The acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land in an extent of 1.00 acre in S. No. 16/2E for providing house sites to Arunthathiars of Kodikkadu hamlet of Kasthuripatti village. In spite of the objections raised during the enquiry held u/s 4(2) of the Act, the impugned notification was issued u/s 4(1) of the Act. The said notification was questioned primarily on the following grounds, among other grounds, namely, in the impugned notification, the purpose of acquisition has been stated as for pro-viding burial ground to the Adidravidars/Arunthathiars and whereas in the schedule appended to the said notification, it is mentioned that the land is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites as well as there was non application of mind as to the purpose for which the land is acquired. Further, even in the Section 4(1) notification, the satisfaction of the Government was only indicated and whereas in terms of Section 4(1), the satisfaction must be of the District Collector and, therefore, on both the grounds, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. The learned single Judge has accepted even the first contention as to the non-application of mind, namely, when the preamble of Section 4(1) notification refers the purpose of acquisition as to provide burial ground to the Adidravidars/Arunthathiars, the schedule refers only to provide house sites and therefore the impugned notification is liable to be set aside on the ground of non application of mind. Having held so, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.
2. We have heard Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
3. Before we delve upon the issue of non application of mind on the ground that the purpose for which the acquisition is being made itself differs in the preamble and the schedule portions, we would refer to the absence of satisfaction of the District Collector in the impugned notification. The notification issued u/s 4(1) reads as under:-
"SALEM DISTRICT GAZETTE
EXTRAORDINARY
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
NO.25 SALEM DECEMBER 19, 1995
(Margazhi 4, Yuva-Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2028)
Notification by the Collector
Form II
(See Rule 3(ii)
NOTICE u/s 4(1) OF THE TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR HARIJAN WELFARE SCHEMES ACT, 1978
Whereas it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the land specified in the Schedule below and situated in the following Villages and Taluks of Salem District are needed for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme, to wit for the provision of burial ground to the Adi Dravidars/Arunthathiars notice to that effect is hereby given to all to whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978)
And, whereas, it has become necessary to acquire immediate possession of the lands specified in the schedule below:-
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act, the Collector of Salem district hereby directs that the land be acquired under the provisions of the said section."
4. A perusal of the said notification shows that the satisfaction or the necessity to acquire the land for the purpose of Harijan welfare scheme was only at the level of the Government of Tamil Nadu and not of the District Collector. The question as to whether the satisfaction arrived at the level of the Government would constitute sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 4(1) came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Jainabi v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Chennai and another (2006 Writ L.R. 653). After referring to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, namely, the power to acquire the land, this Court found that a plain reading of the said section would show that the satisfaction must be that of the District Collector and the acquisition is also by the District Collector by publishing a notification in the District Gazette. The very same issue came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in R.Rasappa Gounder S/o Rasappa Gounder v. The District Collector, Dindigul District and another (2008 Writ L.R. 585) and on consideration of Section 4 of the Act, the Division Bench has observed as follows:-
"6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that it is the District Collector who is required to take an appropriate decision in the matter. The relevant portion of the notification, which has already been extracted, indicates as if the satisfaction was that of the Tamil Nadu State Government. There is no indication in such notification that the District Collector was satisfied regarding the requirement to acquire the land. Under the Act, power has been statutorily conferred on the Collector to consider the requirement for the acquisition. But, in the present case, notification issued by the Collector indicates as if the satisfaction was that of the State Government. Thus, it is obvious that notification suffers from the vice of non-application of mind."
5. In view of the above two Division Bench judgments, the impugned notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act is liable to be set aside, as it does not indicate the satisfaction of the District Collector, who alone is competent to apply his mind as to whether a particular land should be acquired for the purpose of providing burial ground or house sites to the needy persons under the Act. The next question that arises is as to whether the impugned notification is liable to be set aside on the ground of non application of mind. There is no dispute that the preamble of the impugned Section 4(1) notification refers that the acquisition is for the purpose of providing burial ground to Adidravidars/Arunthathiars and the schedule refers the public purpose as one of providing house sites. By the two different versions in regard to the public purpose, it must be held that there is no application of mind as to the very public purpose. Only in order to find out the actual public purpose, the provisions of Section 4(1) contemplate that the satisfaction must be that of the District Collector and not of the Government. Therefore, when the impugned notification refers to two different public purposes, it not only reflected the non application of mind, but also such non application of mind occurred in view of the fact that the District Collector has not actually applied his mind as to the actual public purpose. On both the above grounds, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge requires no interference. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of any merit. Consequently, interim order is vacated and the M.P. No. 2 of 2006 is also dismissed. No costs.
