Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISMAIL versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ismail v. The District Collector - W.P.NO.2487 OF 1996 [2002] RD-TN 606 (21 August 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 21/08/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA

W.P.NO.2487 OF 1996

1. Ismail

2. Asan Sahib ..Petitioner -Vs-

1. The District Collector

Ramanathapuram

2. The Special Tahsildar

AdDravidar Welfare

Ramanathapuram ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Certiorari as stated therein.

For petitioner :Mr.S.Thiruvengadaswamy

For respondents : Mrs. N.G.Kalaiselvi,Spl.G.P. :ORDER



Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In this writ petition, the acquisition of land by the respondents under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 ( Tamil Nadu XXXI of 1978 ) is being challenged. Though several contentions have been raised it is unnecessary to deal with them as the writ petition is to be allowed on the question relating to non-compliance with the provision contained in Section 4(2) of the Act. For convenience the aforesaid provision is quoted hereunder.

"4(2) Before publishing a notice under Section (1), the District collector or any 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."

It has been asserted in the writ petition that the Gazette notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published by the Collector without complying with the provision under Section 4(2). A bare perusal of Section 4 would make it clear that before publishing the notification relevant to acquisition under Section 4, the Collector is required to issue notice to the person concerned in accordance with Section 4 (2). It has been held in several decisions of this Court including N.LOGANATHAN V. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, A.D.W., TIRUVELLORE (1996 (1) M.L.J. 442) that the provision contained in Section 4(2) is mandatory and any acquisition in violation of such provision is null and void.

3.In the present case, though counter has been filed, there is no assertion to the effect that notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) has been issued to the petitioner before publication of the Gazette dated 1.11.95. In fact, it appears that only after publication of the Gazette dated 1.11.1995, a notice was issued to the petitioner for the first time in Form No.III on 21.12.1995. Notice under Form No. III relates to the question of the award. On the other hand notice under Section 4(2) is in Form No.I. Such a notice has not been issued.

4.Following the aforesaid decision, I quash the gazette notification dated 1.11.1995. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

21-08-2002

Index:yes

Internet:yes

sal

To

1. The District Collector

Ramanathapuram

2. The Special Tahsildar

AdiDravidar Welfare

Ramanathapuram

P.K.MISRA,J.

W.P.NO.2487/1996




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.