ORDER
1. W.P.No.12730 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.No.3(D)No.233 Adi Dravidar and Trival Welfare dated 16.3.1993 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 17.3.1993, Pan II, Section 2 at page 2 in so far as it relates to the petitioner’s lands comprised in S.NO.147/IA in Bommidi Village, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and quash the acquisition proceedings and forbear the respondents from acquiring the petitioners agricultural lands.
2. W.P.No. 18494 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the acquisition of the lands in Survey No.185 (part) of an extent of 8.49.5 hectares in Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District and quash the G.O.No.3-D No.122 Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.2.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Page 1, Part II Section 2 (Supplement) dated 18.3.1992.
3. W.P.No.22277 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to section 4(1) Notification in G.O.3-D734 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 12.10.1992 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.(3- D) No.643 A.D. & T.W. Department dated 16.9.1993 and quash the same in so far as they relate to the petitioners land in S.No.29/13 of Nelkkarapatti Village, Salem Taluk.
4. W.P.No. 12326 of 1994 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.3 (D) No.41, Backward classes and most Backward Classes Welfare dated 12.5.1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.5.1994 and quash the same in so
far as it relates to the petitioners lands in S.Nos.337/4, 337/5A, 337/5B and 337/5C in Bommarajapuram Village, H/O Suryanagaram.
5. The petitioners, in the above writ petitions, have chosen to challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the date of issuance of notifications differ, as the point involved for consideration in all the above writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions are dealt with together and the following common order is passed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are vitiated as there was no compliance of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, which makes obligatory on the part of the respondents to forward the objections received from the land owners to such Department or company who are requiring the land and the Department or company has duty to answer to the objections. Learned counsel have further submitted that in these cases the objections received from the land owners have hot been forwarded to the requisitioning bodies by the collector more so. when the impugned notifications under section 4(1) of the Act have been issued to the respective petitioners after 11.6.1991 on which date, the amendments to the Land Acquisition Rules have come into force. They have further submitted that as per the Rule 3 (b) of the old Tamil Nadu Acquisition Rules and the explanation thereto there was no obligation on the part of the collector to send notice and call for the remarks of the revenue department if the land was required by the revenue department and the revenue department was deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward classes at the District level. Learned counsel have further submitted that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the old Rules. They have further submitted that in the absence of Explanation to Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules, the authorities have no power whatsoever to cloud themselves under the explanation to Rule 3(b) of the old Rules so as to defend that it is not obligatory on their part to forward the objections to the requisitioning body when the Department is the Revenue Department, in the absence of the words
“Revenue Department” in Rule 4 (b) of the amended Rules, learned counsel submitted that the department mentioned in Rule 4 (b) includes the Revenue Department and the respondents authorities ought to have forwarded the objections to the Revenue Department which is the requisitioning authority in the cases on hand. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. TO substantiate their contention that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Stale of Mysore and others v. V.K.Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2100 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the requirement regarding giving of notice to concerned Department is mandatory and failure to give notice is fatal to validity of proceedings under section 5-A(2) and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
7. In the counter, it has been stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the objections filed by the interested persons and the same have been overruled. However it is not stated whether the objections have been forwarded to the requisitioning body even though it is the Revenue Department in compliance of the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the Rules.
8. Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules prior to amendment of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules in 1991. reads thus:
if any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date of hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objectors as well as to the department or company requiring the land where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.
Explanation :- for the purpose of this sub-rule, the Revenue Department shall be deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward Classes at the district level. (G.O.Ms.No.996 Revenue, dated 19.5.1976).
9. Rule 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules amended as per G.O.Ms.No.892 Revenue dated 11.6.1991 reads thus:
“if any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form “B”: to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.”
10. As per the provisions of Rule 3 (b) of the old Rules and the explanation thereto, there was no obligation on the part of the acquisitioning
body to forward the objections received from the land owners to the Revenue Department if the Revenue Department was the requisitioning authority. The explanation provided to the above Rule 3(b) states that the Revenue Department was deemed to include the departments of Harijan welfare and Backward Classes at the district level. As per Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules which have come into force from 11.6.1991, the collector shall fix date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form ‘B’ to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land and copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules, did not carry with it, the explanation as found in Rule 3(b) of the Rules prior to amendment. In the absence of the words ‘Revenue Department’ in Rule 4 of the amended Rules, it has to be construed that the apartment includes the Revenue Department. A duty is cast upon the acquisitioning authority to forward the objections of the land owners to the requisitioning authority if the requisitioning authority is the Revenue Department and to offer their remarks, obviously, the impugned, notifications under section 4(1) of the Act have been issued in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively and the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules have come into force from 11.6.1991 as. per G.O.Ms.No.892 Revenue. More so, as on the date of issuance of notification under” Section 4(1), the amended Rules have come into force and the respondents authorities ought to have followed the provisions of the amended Rules and should have forwarded the objections to the Revenue Department which is the requisitioning authority. The provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Madras Land Acquisition Rules were held to be mandatory as observed by the Supreme Court in V.K.Kangan’s case, AIR 1975 SC 2100, Following the decision of the supreme Court cited above, it has to be held that the provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules which are akin to the provisions of Rule 3(b) ,of the old Rules, are mandatory and non-compliance of the provisions of such rule, by the authority concerned, vitiates the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that as Rule 4(b) of the amended Rules did not carry with it the explanation, it has to be construed that it is mandatory that the acquisitioning authority has to send objections received from the land owners to the requisitioning authority even if the requisitioning body is the Revenue Department, for their remarks, is acceptable. As the respondents have failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 4(b) of the amended Tamil Nadu Acquisition Rules, i.e. failure to forward the objections of the land owners to the Revenue Department, which is the requisitioning body, while issuing the impugned 4 (1) notifications in the year 1993 and 1994 respectively, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and the same are accordingly quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs, consequently connected Writ Miscellaneous petitions are closed.