IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13/07/2006 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN WRIT APPEAL No.1663 of 2002 and WRIT APPEAL No.1664 of 2002 Ramasamy V. .. Appellant in WA.1663 of 2002 Dhanalakshmi .. Appellant in WA.1664 of 2002 -Vs- 1.The Tahsildar Camp Office Harijan Welfare Department Gingee, Tindivanam Salai Villupuram District. 2. The Collector Villupuram District Villupuram. .. Respondents in both Was.
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent
against the common order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice K. Govindarajan,
dated 05.12.2000 made in WP.Nos.3170 and 3171 of 2000.
!For appellants : Dr. G. Krishnamurthy
^For respondents : Mr. C. Thirumaran
Government Advocate
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The above writ appeals are directed against the common order
of the learned single Judge dated 05.12.2000 made in WP.Nos.3170 and 3171 of
2000, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that the petitioners
were given notice and participated in the enquiry, rejected their claim and
dismissed the writ petitions.
2. Heard Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mr. C. Thirumaran, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the appellants were not served with proper notice in Form I under Section
4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act,
1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978). Though in the counter affidavit it has been
specifically stated that notices were duly issued on 23.01.1999 itself fixing
the enquiry on 09.02.1999 and thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned to
18.02.1999, for which also the land owners were duly informed, appeared and
filed their objections. We verified all the above details from the records
produced by the learned Government Advocate. Records produced by the learned
Government Advocate further show that both the appellants were duly served
notice for enquiry originally fixed on 09.02.1999. It is further seen that
due to “on other duty”, the Land Acquisition Officer postponed the enquiry to
18.02.1999. The records also show that for the enquiry dated 18.02.1999, both
the lands owners appeared and filed their objections. The Land Acquisition
Officer, after referring all the details, such as, Survey Number, extent,
ownership particulars and their objections, etc., after satisfying that the
lands in question are required for provision of house sites to houseless Adi
Draviders, recommended to the Collector for issuance of notification in the
District gazette.
4. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the
appellants were afforded opportunity and in fact they submitted their
objections and the same were duly considered and thereafter only notification
was issued in the District gazette, we are unable to accept the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and we are in agreement with
the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. We do not find any
valid ground to interfere with the impugned common order of the learned single
Judge; on the other hand, we are in agreement with the same. Accordingly, the
appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
kh
To
1. The Tahsildar
Camp Office
Harijan Welfare Department
Gingee, Tindivanam Salai
Villupuram District.
2. The Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram.