{"id":61660,"date":"2006-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-16T07:01:49","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T01:31:49","slug":"s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 06\/04\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR      \n\nWrit Appeal No.1304 of 2000 \n\n\n1. S.Radhakrishnan \n\n2. S.Lakshminarayanan  \n\n3. S.Kalyanasundaram  \n\n4. S.Thyagarajan                        - Appellants\n\n-vs-\n\n1. The District Collector,\nThanjavur.\n\n2. The Special Tahsildar for\nLand Acquisition (Adi-Dravidar\nWelfare) Department, \nKumbakonam, Thanjavur District.         .. Respondents\n\n        Appeal  under  Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated\n18.07.2000 made by the learned single Judge (KGJ) in W.P.  No.1430 of 1998. \n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.G.Rajagopalan,\n                Senior Counsel for Mr.K.K.Senthil\n\n^For R-3                :  Mr.D.Krishnakumar,\n                Special Government Pleader.\n.  .  .  .  .\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P.  SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned
\nsingle Judge dated 18.07.2000 made in W.P.  No.1430 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the Writ
\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  According to the petitioners they own lands in S.  Nos.111\/1A  and
\n110-2A  in  Thepperumai  Nallur  Village,  Thirvidaimaruthur  Taluk, Thanjavur
\nDistrict.   The  2nd  respondent\/Special  Tahsildar   for   Land   Acquisition
\n(Adi-Dravidar Welfare) Department, Kumbakonam, issued Form-I notice under Rule
\n3(1)  of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules,
\n1979.  The said notice was issued to all the petitioners and,  on  receipt  of
\nthe  same,  they  gave  representation to the second respondent on 23.07.1997,
\n07.8.1997 and 14.08.1997.  Enquiry was conducted on 14.08.1997 and report  was
\nsent  to  the  District  Collector,  Thanjavur,  the  first respondent herein.
\nSubsequently,  the  first  respondent  issued  proceedings  dated  24.12.1997,
\ndirecting acquisition of agricultural lands of the petitioners under the Tamil
\nNadu Acquisition  of lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978.  In the Writ
\nPetition, the  petitioners  mainly  contended  that  though  they  were  given
\nopportunity  to put forth their representation, the District Collector, who is<\/p>\n
the authority under the Act, has not given opportunity by  supplying  copy  of
\nthe  report  of  the  Special Tahsildar and did not conduct the enquiry before
\nordering publication of notification in the District Gazette in Form-II.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The District Collector filed counter affidavit before the  learned
\nsingle  Judge,  wherein,  it is stated that the enquiry under Section 4 (2) of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978,  was
\nconducted on 14.08.1997 by the Special Tahsildar ( ADW), Kumbakonam, after due
\nservice of  notice  in  Form-I on the respective land owners.  The land owners
\nfiled objection petitions through  their  lawyer  during  the  enquiry.    The
\nobjection  petitions  were  received  from  them  on  13.05.1997,  10.05.1997,
\n21.7.1997 and 07.08.1997 prior to the above enquiry.  The objections raised by
\nthem were considered in detail and proposals under Section 4(1) were submitted
\nby the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Kumbakonam, to the  Collector,  Thanjavur,  in
\nhis Rc.No.8\/96-A  dated 20.10.1997.  After considering the objection raised by
\nthe land owners to the acquisition and the  remarks  offered  by  the  Special
\nTahsildar,  Kumbakonam,  to  the  same,  the  Collector rejected the objection
\nraised by the land owners, accepted the proposal submitted under Section  4(1)
\nby  the  Special Tahsildar and ordered for publication of notification in Form
\nII in the Special issue of Thanjavur  District  Gazette,  in  his  proceedings
\ndated 24.12.1997.    The  notification  issued by the Collector in Form-II was
\npublished at page-3 of Special issue No.49 of Thanjavur District Gazette dated
\n29.12.1997.  As per Section 5 of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Acquisition  of  Land  for
\nHarijan  Welfare  Schemes  Act 31 of 1978, the lands in question, by virtue of
\npublication in the District Gazette, stands vested  in  the  Government,  free
\nfrom  all  encumbrances  on  land from the date of publication in the District
\nGazette.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The  learned  single  Judge,  by  order  dated  18.07.2000,  after
\nconsidering  the  above  referred  contentions;  and  after  finding  that the
\npetitioners were given opportunity to  put  forth  their  case  and  that  the
\nDistrict Collector, only after considering the objection of the petitioners as
\nwell  as  the Report of the Special Tahsildar, passed an order for publication
\nof the notification in the District  Gazette;  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition,
\nhence, the land owners have preferred the present Writ Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    Heard   Mr.G.Rajagopalan,   learned   Senior   Counsel  for  the
\npetitioners\/appellants  and  Mr.D.Krishnakumar,  learned  Special   Government
\nPleader for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Learned  Senior Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that
\nthough the petitioners were granted opportunity to put forth their objections,
\nthey were not given copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar and no enquiry
\nwas conducted by the District Collector  before  causing  publication  in  the
\nDistrict Gazette.    He  also contended that though suitable alternate land of
\nthe petitioners is available, the same was not considered by the  authorities.
\nAccording  to  him,  there is a violation of principles of natural justice and
\nthe acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Learned Special Government Pleader met the  above  contentions  by
\nplacing relevant records.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In support of the first contention, learned Senior Counsel heavily
\nrelied  on  a  Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997 TNLJ 311
\n(Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Boinsingh  v.    The  District  Collector,  Tirunelveli
\nKattabomman District and<\/a> another).  It is also a case of acquisition under the
\nTamil Nadu  Acquisit  ion  of  Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act.  The Writ
\nPetitioner therein challenged the order  passed  by  the  District  Collector,
\nTirunelveli Kattabomman  District,  dated  17.2.1997.    The said order, dated
\n17.2.1997, was based on the  report  filed  by  the  Tahsildar.    Before  the
\nTahsildar,   the   writ   petitioner   appeared   and   also  gave  a  written
\nrepresentation.  It was the case of the petitioner that she had no other  land
\nexcept  the  one under acquisition and that in the said land there are coconut
\nyielding trees.  A contention was made before the Division Bench that  without
\ngiving an opportunity to establish the petitioner’s case, the Collector passed
\nthe order  on  the  basis  of the report filed by the Tahsildar.  The Division
\nBench, after observing that the appellant was not given an opportunity  before
\npassing  order  by the Collector, set aside the order, dated 17.2.1997, of the
\nDistrict Collector  and  directed  him  to  pass  fresh  orders  after  giving
\nopportunity of being heard to the appellant\/writ petitioner.  Except the above
\nreferred  factual details, the Division Bench neither adverted to the relevant
\nprovisions of Act 31 of 1 978 nor adduced sufficient reasons for  arriving  at
\nsuch conclusion based on the provisions therein.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Before  the  learned single Judge, same contention was raised by
\nplacing reliance on the above referred Division Bench Judgment.  The  decision
\nrendered by one  of  us  (P.    Sathasivam,  J.)  in Sannasi vs.  The District
\nCollector, Pudukottai<\/a> (1999 (2) MLJ 506) was also pressed into service  before
\nthe learned Judge.   The said decision also arose under Act XXXI of 1978.  The
\nlearned Judge, after narrating the provisions of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,
\n1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) and the Special Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Acquisition
\nof Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (XXXI of 1978) as well as the order of
\nthe Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v.  Ananthi Ammal (AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 2114),
\nwherein,  the  State  Act (Act 31 of 1978) was upheld except sub-section(1) of
\nSection-11 by the Supreme Court; after observing that the  object  of  passing
\nSpecial  enactment is for speedy action to construct houses for the benefit of
\nAdi Dravidas; after taking note of the specific departure by  the  Legislature
\nfrom  the Central Act and of the fact that the Division Bench has not adverted
\nto any of the provisions of Act XXXXI  of  1978;  distinguished  the  Division
\nBench  Judgment  and  rejected  a  similar contention as raised by the learned
\nSenior Counsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        In the order  impugned,  the  learned  single  Judge  (K.G.J.),  after
\naccepting  the  appreciation and analysis of the Central Act and the State Act
\nby the learned Judge (P.S.J.), ultimately, dismissed the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel,  contended  that  since
\nthe  decision reported in 1997 TNLJ 311 has been rendered by a Division Bench,
\nthe learned single Judge ought to have followed the same and it  is  not  open
\nfor  the present Bench, being a co-ordinate Bench, to differ from the Division
\nBench decision, but the proper course would be to refer the issue to a  larger
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
        12.    Though  there  is  no  dispute  regarding  propriety,  judicial
\ndiscipline as well as decorum, let us consider as to whether the  decision  of
\nthe  Division  Bench  reported  in  1997 TNLJ 311 is a binding decision or per
\nincuriam.\n<\/p>\n
        In the earlier part of our Judgement, we have referred to  almost  the
\nentire order  of the Division Bench.  Though we find that there is a direction
\nto the District Collector to give an  opportunity  to  the  petitioner  before
\npassing  orders,  as  rightly pointed out in the decision reported in 1999 (2)
\nMLJ 506, the Division Bench has not referred to any of the provisions  of  Act
\n31 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   In  order  to  appreciate  the above contention, it is useful to
\nrefer to the salient features and relevant provisions of the State Act as well
\nas the Central Act.  The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land  for  Harijan  Welfare
\nSchemes  Act  (XXXI  of  1978)  was enacted by the Legislature of the State of
\nTamil Nadu in the year 1978 and it came into force from 24th September,  1979.
\nEven  though  the  said Act was struck down as ultra vires the Constitution of
\nIndia and offending Article 14 by a Division Bench decision  of  this  Cou  rt
\nreported in 96 L.W.  48, subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the order of
\nthis Court, holding that Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1978 is not ultra vires Article
\n14  except Sub-section (1) of Section-11, which is valid only to the extent it
\nprovides for payment of compensation in lump sum.  The rest of  the  provision
\nof  Sub-Section(1) of Section-11 regarding instalments, which is severable, is
\nviolative of Article 15 vide:  State of Tamil Nadu Vs.  Ananthi Ammal,  A.I.R.
\n1995 S.C.  2114 :  (1995) 1 S.C.C.  519.  The declaration made under Section-2
\nof  the  Act  makes  it clear that the Act is enacted for giving effect to the
\npolicy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in Part  IV  and
\nin particular  Article 46 of the Constitution.  Among other provisions, we are<\/p>\n
concerned with Section-4 which speaks about power of the District Collector to
\nacquire land for the purpose of Harijan welfare scheme.  The word   Harijans
\nis defined in Section-3 (f) of the Act is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        3 (f):  Harijans means members of the Scheduled Castes  and  include
\nscheduled Tribes.<\/p>\n
Clause (g) defines Harijan Welfare scheme as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Sec.  3 (g):  Harijan Welfare Scheme means any scheme for  provision
\nof  house-sites  for  Harijans  for  constructing,  extending or improving any
\ndwelling-house for Harijans or for providing any burial or burning grounds for
\nHarijans or for providing any pathway leading to such  dwelling-house,  burial
\nor  burning  grounds,  or  for  providing any other amenity for the benefit of
\nHarijans.\n<\/p>\n
The  power of the District Collector in regard to acquisition of land has been
\ndescribed in Section-4 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Power to acquire  land:-  (1)  Where  the  District  Collector  is
\nsatisfied  that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary
\nto acquire any land, he may acquire the land by  publishing  in  the  District
\nGazette  a  notice  to  the  effect that he has decided to acquire the land in
\npursuance of this section.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Before  publishing  a  notice  under  Sub-sec.(1),  the  District
\nCollector  or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf,
\nshall call upon the owner or any other person,  who  in  the  opinion  of  the
\nDistrict  Collector  or  the  officer  so authorised may be interested in such
\nland, to show cause why it should not be acquired.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) (a) The District collector may, where he has himself  called  upon
\nthe owner or other person to show cause under Sub-Sec.(2), pass such orders as
\nhe may deem fit on the cause so shown;\n<\/p>\n
        (b)  Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called
\nupon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-sec.(2), the officer so
\nauthorised shall make a  report  to  the  District  Collector  containing  his
\nrecommendations  on  the  cause  so  shown  for  the  decision of the District
\ncollector.  After considering such report the District Collector may pass such
\norders as he may deem fit.<\/p>\n
        14.  Other provisions are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the
\nquestion raised, hence, we are not referring  to  the  same.    By  virtue  of
\nSection-23 of the Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu framed Rules called Tamil
\nNadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 and the same
\nwas published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24th September, 1979.
\nRule 3 speaks about the procedure, which runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        ” 3.  Procedure for acquiring land:     (i)  The District Collector or
\nthe officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show  cause  notice
\nin  Form  I  under  Sub-sec.(2)  of Sec.4, individually on the owner or on all
\npersons interested in the land to be acquired.  If  the  owner  or  any  other
\nperson  interested  in  the  land  resides  elsewhere  than  where the land is
\nsituated,  the  show  cause  notice  shall  be   sent   by   registered   Post
\n(Acknowledgement  Due)  to  the  last  known address of the owner or any other
\nperson interested.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) The District Collector, if, after passing such orders as required
\nby Sub-secs.(2) and (3) of Sec.4 is satisfied that it is necessary to  acquire
\nthe  land, notice in Form II to that effect shall be published in the District
\nGazette.<\/p>\n
Here again, except Rule 3, we are not concerned with  other  Rules.    If  the
\nDistrict  collector  is  satisfied for the purpose of implementing any Harijan
\nWelfare Scheme and land is required for the  same,  it  is  open  for  him  to
\nacquire  the said land by publishing in the Government Gazette a notice to the
\neffect that he has decided to  acquire  the  land.    As  per  Sub-sec.(2)  of
\nSection-4,  before  publication of the notice under Sub-section(1), either the
\nDistrict Collector or any officer authorised by him, call upon  the  owner  or
\nany  other  interested  person  to  show-cause  why it should not be acquired.
\nSub-section 3(a) gives power to the District Collector to pass such orders  as
\nhe  may  deem  fit  on  the  cause  so  shown  and  according to clause (b) of
\nSub-section(3) of Section-4, the officer, after  calling  upon  the  owner  or
\nother  persons  to  show  cause  under Sub-sec.(2), shall make a report to the
\nDistrict Collector containing his recommendations on the cause  so  shown  for
\nthe decision  of  the  District  Collector.   Thereafter, the Collector, after
\nconsidering the report of the officer so authorised, is to pass orders  as  he
\ndeems fit.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   There  is  no dispute that the petitioners were given show cause
\nnotice by the Special Tahsildar (Officer authorised by the District Collector)
\ninviting their remarks or objections with regard to the  proposed  acquisition
\nfor the  purpose  of  Harijan  Welfare  Scheme.    It  is also the case of the
\npetitioners that they submitted their objections to the proposed  acquisition.
\nTheir grievance is that on receipt of the report from the Special Tahsildar as
\nenunciated  in  Sub-sec.(3)  (b) of Section-4, the District Collector ought to
\nhave sent a copy of the said report to the landowners as well as  the  persons
\ninterested.   It  is  also their contention that on receipt of the report from
\nthe Special Tahsildar, the District Collector ought to have provided one  more
\nopportunity  to the landowners by forwarding a copy of the said report to them
\nto put forth their contentions.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  We have already extracted Section  4  of  the  Act,  particularly
\nclause (b)  to  Sub-sec.(3)  of  Section-4.    As  stated earlier, there is no
\ndispute that the petitioners were given show  cause  notices  by  the  Special
\nTahsildar  (Officer  authorised  by  the  District  Collector)  and  that they
\nsubmitted their objections before the said officer.   As  per  clause  (b)  to
\nSub-section (3) of Section-4, a duty is cast on the District Collector to pass
\nappropriate orders  after considering the report of the Special Tahsildar.  In
\nother words, there is no specific provision for furnishing copy of the  report
\nof  the  Special  Tahsildar  or  making  any further enquiry as claimed by the
\npetitioners.  Though the learned Judges, in the said decision viz., Thirumathi
\nPushpa Bai Bainsingh vs.  District Collector, Tirunelveli<\/a> (1998)  1  CTC  281,
\nset  aside  the order of the Collector and directed him to give an opportunity
\nto the petitioner therein, in the light of any such provision in Section-4 (3)\n<\/p>\n
(b) and in the absence of any discussion by the learned Judges with  reference
\nto  the  above  mentioned provision, with respect, we are of the view that the
\nsaid decision has to be confined only to the facts in  that  case.    In  this
\nregard,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in order to ameliorate the grievances of
\nthousands of Harijans in this State, the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  enacted
\nTamil Nadu  Act  XXXI  of 1978.  As we have already adverted to, the object of
\nthe Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards  securing  the
\nprinciples  laid  down  in  Part  IV,  and  in  particular  Article  46 of the
\nConstitution of India.  Since the State Legislature thought that  recourse  to
\nthe  Central  Act, viz., Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would be a time consuming
\nprocess and it is very difficult to implement the Harijan Welfare Schemes  for
\nthe  members  of  the  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they enacted the
\npresent Act, namely, Act XXXI of 1978.  Further, all  the  provisions  of  the
\nTamil  Nadu  Act  31 of 1978 were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme
\nCourt in State of Tamil Nadu V.  Ananthi  Ammal  A.I.R.<\/a>    1995  S.C.    2114:
\n(1995) 1  S.C.C.    519,  their Lordships have considered Section-4 as well as
\nSub-sections.(1), (2), (3) (a) and (b)  to  Section-4  and  ultimately  upheld
\nthose provisions  of  the Act except Sub-Section(1) of Section-11.  It is also
\nclear  that  the  provisions  of  Section-4  substantially   encapsulate   the
\nprovisions of  Sections-4  to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act).  As
\nobserved by their Lordships in Ananthi Ammals case, A.I.R.  1995 S.C.   2114,
\nthe  only  major  difference  being  that, under the Tamil Nadu Act, it is the
\nDistrict Collector and not the State Government  (as  under  Land  Acquisition
\nAct) who  must  be  satisfied that the land is required to be acquired.  After
\nholding so, their Lordships concluded that it does not appear to us that this
\nis a provision (Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Act) which is unreasonable or arbitrary”.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In the Central Act, after enquiry under Section.5-A of that  Act,
\nthe  Land  Acquisition  Officer  has  to simply forward the entire proceedings
\nincluding  the  objection  of  the  landowners  and  also  the  views  of  the
\nrequisitioning  body  to  the  Government  for taking appropriate decision and
\nmaking declaration  under  Section-6.    After  completion  of  enquiry  under
\nSection.5-A  of the Central Act, no further enquiry is contemplated in the Act
\nat  the  hands  of  the  State  Government  before  making  declaration  under
\nSection-6.   Herein,  in  the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the Special Tahsildar
\nsends show cause notice  to  the  land  owners  and  the  persons  interested,
\nreceives  their  objections  and  makes a report to the District collector for
\npassing appropriate orders under clause (b) to  Sub-section(3)  of  Section-4.
\nAs  per the above provisions in Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, it is not mandatory
\non the part of the Collector to send a copy  of  the  report  of  the  Special
\nTahsildar  and  conduct  further  enquiry  as  contended by the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the petitioners.   When  there  is  a  specific  omission  by  the
\nLegislature, taking note of the object in enacting the legislation (Act 3 1 of
\n1978),  it  is  not  open to the Court to give a different meaning what is not
\nactually intended or included in the statute.   In  this  regard,  we  are  in
\nentire  agreement  with  the  view expressed in 1999 (2) MLJ 506 and unable to
\naccept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the  petitioners.    For
\nthe  same  reasons,  we  are also satisfied that there is no need to refer the
\nissue to a larger Bench as claimed by Mr.G.Rajagopalan.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  has  relied  on  the  following
\ndecisions of the Supreme Court reported in,<\/p>\n
        (a) AIR 1972 SC 136 (State Bank of India v.  R.K.Jain)<\/a>;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) AIR 1991 SC 471 (Union of India v.  Mohd.  Ramzan Khan)<\/a>; and\n<\/p>\n
        (c)AIR 1994 SC 1074 (Managing Director, ECIL v.  B.Karunakar),<\/p>\n
and<\/a>  contended  that  even if there is no provision in the Act, in view of the
\ncompulsory nature of acquisition, adequate opportunity must be  given  to  the
\nland owners.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   In  the  light  of  the said contention, we verified the factual
\ndetails in the above three cases.  First of all, those cases relate to service
\nmatters.  Secondly, Court  cannot  infer  something  when  there  is  no  such
\nprovision  in  the  Act  and issue direction to the authority to do something,
\nwhich is not authorised or permitted under the Statute.  In the light  of  the
\nsame,  we  are  of  the view that there is no need to refer to the above cited
\ndecisions.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Coming  to  the  next  argument  that  alternate  land  of   the
\npetitioners  is available and a suggestion\/representation was forwarded to the
\nopinion of the Government, first of all,  as  per  the  Tamil  Nadu  Act,  all
\ndecisions have  to  be  taken  only  by the District Collector.  Secondly, the
\nReport shows that the alternate land suggested by the petitioners is  adjacent
\nto the  graveyard.    Though it is pointed out that even the beneficiaries\/Adi
\nDravidas have no objection in constructing houses in the suggested land, which
\nis nearer to the graveyard, it is not for this Court to issue direction to the
\nauthorities to accept the same.    It  is  not  known  as  to  what  made  the
\nbeneficiaries  to  accept  the  alternate  site, particularly when the land is
\nnearer to the graveyard.  Further, graveyard in villages is not like  the  one
\nin a  City,  wherein, sufficient safeguards are there.  In such circumstances,
\nwe are of the view that acceptance of alternate land is left to the discretion
\nof the District Collector, who is the competent authority.   We  refrain  from
\nmaking any direction or comment on the suggestion of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   In the light of what is stated above, we are in entire agreement
\nwith the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge and we do not  find
\nany error  or  infirmity  or  valid  ground  for interference.  Writ Appeal is
\ndevoid of merits and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The District Collector, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition (Adi-Dravidar
\n        Welfare) Department, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 06\/04\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR Writ Appeal No.1304 of 2000 1. S.Radhakrishnan 2. S.Lakshminarayanan 3. S.Kalyanasundaram 4. S.Thyagarajan – Appellants -vs- 1. The District Collector, Thanjavur. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3561,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\",\"name\":\"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006"},"wordCount":3561,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006","name":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T01:31:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-radhakrishnan-vs-the-district-collector-on-6-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}