Madras High Court
S. Sannasi, And Two Others vs The District Collector, Pudukkottai ... on 5 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)CTC293, 1999 A I H C 2112, (1999) 2 MAD LJ 506 (2000) WRITLR 559, (2000) WRITLR 559
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER
1. Since the issue in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1978), the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.
2. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8360 of 1997 is briefly stated hereunder: The first petitioner Sannasi is the owner of an extent of 0.39.0 Ars in S.No. 261/2 in Kodikulam village, the second petitioner Chinnappa Pathar is owning an extent of 0.48.0 Are in S.No. 257/3 and the third petitioner Velu Pathar is owning an extent of 0.36.5 Ars in S.No. 2575/5 in the said village. The first petitioner belongs to Harijan community. Originally lands measuring an extent of 0.96 cents in original S.No. 261 of Kodikulam village was assigned in favour of his father by the Block Development Officer under the provisions of the Board Standing Orders. After the death of his father, these lands came to his hands and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The second petitioner was assigned an extent of 1 acre and 20 cents in S.No. 257/3 in Kodikulam village by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings dated 31.3.1971. The third petitioner was also assigned an extent of 0.92 cents in S.No. 257/5 in the same village.
3. It is further stated that the second respondent originally issued a notice in form 1 and informed the petitioners to file their objections for the proposed action taken for acquisition of the lands belonging to them under section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1978. The petitioners filed their objections. However, no farther enquiry was held in this regard. Thereafter the second respondent issued another notice in January, 1997 in form 1 and called the petitioners to file the objections if any on 4.2.1997 before the second respondent. The petitioners also filed their objections opposing the acquisition proposal by the respondents. As the petitioners were anxiously hoping for an another hearing, by the first respondent, suddenly received a stereo type order of the first respondent dared 1.3.1997 rejecting all the objections of the petitioners wholly on an erroneous basis. The first respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their objections after the report of the second respondent. The respondents have contravened the mandatory provisions of Act XXXI of 1978 in not holding the enquiry in the proper manner and the first respondent has ordered the acquisition of lands of the petitioners without any application of mind and without affording any opportunity to them. Having no other remedy, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition (W.P.No. 8360 of 1997).
4. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No. 10383 of 1997 is as follows: The first and second petitioners are owning an extent of 0.31.0 Ares on lands situated in S.No.257/4 in Kodikulam village. The third petitioner is owning an extent of 0.03.5 Ares in S.No. 258/1c, the fourth petitioner is owning an extent of 0.75.5 Ares in S.No. 257/27, the 5th petitioner is owning an extent of 0.62.5 Ares, 0.40.0 Ares in S.Nos. 261/1 and 261/3 and 7th petitioner is also owning an extent of 0.07.0 Ares in S.No. 258/1b all situated in the same village, namely, Kodikulam village. The 6th petitioner's father owned an extent of 0.28.5. Ares in S.No.257/lA in the same village and after his death, he (6th petitioner) and the 5th petitioner have succeeded to the same. The second respondent originally issued a notice in Form 1 and informed the petitioners to file their objections for the proposed action taken for acquisition of the lands belonging go them under section 4(1) of Act XXXI of 1978. The petitioners also filed their objections. However, no farther enquiry was held in this regard. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued another notice in January, 1997 in Form 1 and called them to file the objections, if any on 4.2.1997 before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners filed their objections stoutly opposing the acquisition proposal by the respondents. The respondents never conducted any enquiry after filing of the objections and more particularly, the report forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the first respondent was also not communicated to the petitioners. The first respondent also did not give any opportunity to them to substantiate their objection after the report of the 2nd respondent. A reading of the order of the first respondent dated 7.3.1997 would clearly show that the first respondent has exercised the power in a mechanical way without furnishing the recommendations of the 2nd respondent relied upon by the first respondent to reject the objections. In these circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition (W.P.NO. 10383 of 1997.
5. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in W.P.No. 8360 of 1997, however, they filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No. 10383 of 1997. The counter affidavit runs as follows: Though the respondents 1 and 2 have filed a separate counter affidavit in W.P.No. 10383 of 1997, they have taken a common defence; hence I am herewith referring the defence taken by them. It is stated that the land acquisition proposals were initiated for the provision of free house sites to the Adhidravidars of Kodikulam village. About 180 Adhidravidar families who were houseless are residing along with their relatives in rented houses and also as joint families. There are no suitable poramboke lands as Natham Poramboke lands or other poramboke lands which can be transferred as Natham are available in this village. Hence, lands in S.F. 257/3, 257/4, 258/1A, 258/1B, 258/1C, 258/1B, 258/1C, 258/1D, 261/1, 261/2, 261/3, 261/4 and 257/2 totally measuring an extent of 3.52.5. hectares has been selected to acquire for providing house-sites to the said 180 houseless Adhidravidar families. As per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 31of 1978 and the rules. Form 1 notices were served on the landowners and interested persons to file their objections if any before the land acquisition officer. The enquiry under section 4(2) of the Act was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer (Special Tahsildar) on 4.2.1997. The landowners including the writ petitioners have filed their objections. The Special Tahsildar submitted a report to the District Collector, who after considering the merits and demerits of the objections raised by the landowners, has passed an order in their proceedings RC.No.03/17015/96 dated 7.3.1997 rejecting the objections. Subsequently a notification under 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978 was published in the Pudukkottai District Gazette. After observing the usual formalities with reference to Rules and Act, notices in Form III were served on the landowners intimating the award enquiry which was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer at his office on 24.3.1997. No landowners or the persons interested turned up for enquiry even though the notices were served on them well in advance. Subsequently, procedures contemplated in the Act and Rules were followed and Award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award proceedings RC.No. 6 of 1996-97 dated 27.3.1997. The copies of Award proceedings were also communicated to all landowners by Registered Post. Since the landowners did not turn up to receive the compensation, the entire amount was deposited at the Sub- Treasury. Aranthangi under Revenue Deposit on 31.3.1997. There is no mention in the Act or in the Rules that the enquiry report of the Land Acquisition Officer has to be furnished to the landowners. A notice under section 4(2) of the Act was served to the petitioners and others before the Land Acquisition Officer on 4.2.1997. The petitioners and other landowners have appeared for enquiry and filed their objections. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting enquiry under Section 4(2) has submitted his recommendations along with enquiry records to the Collector. The Collector after perusing the entire records and after satisfying the reasons recorded therein has come to the conclusion and passed orders rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners and other landowners. The petitioners were given fair opportunities of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As per section 4(3) of the Act, the Collector after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under section 4(2) of the Act may pass such orders as he may deem fit. Hence the Collector after perusing the records of enquiry submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 4(2) of the Act, has passed appropriate orders to acquire the lands under section 4(1) of the Act. Hence the notification issued by the Collector under section 4(1) of the Act is in accordance with law. Further, it is stated that the land acquisition process has already been completed. A lay out has been laid on the acquired lands and house site pattas have been distributed to the 180 houseless Adhidravidars. The compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,620 was also deposited at Sub- Treasury, Aranthangi under Revenue Deposit. In such circumstances, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.S. Thiruvenkadaswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:
(i) Inasmuch as the District Collector failed to communicate the report of the Tahsildar, the ultimate order passed by him is contrary to Section 4(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as "the Act");
(ii) The first petitioner in W.P.No. 8360 of 1997 being a Harijan, the respondents are estopped from acquiring lands belonging to him. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate contended that the respon-dents have fully complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules. He also submitted that Section 4(3) (b) of the Act does not contemplate any personal enquiry and there is no obligation on the part of the Collector to furnish a copy of the report of the Tahsildar.
8. Since the first question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to compliance of section 4(3)(b) of the Act, this Court, in order to render an authoritative decision, heard the arguments of Mr.C. Selvaraj and Mr. Ar.L. Sundaresan as Amicus curea.
9. Before considering the main issue. I shall consider the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is stated that that first petitioner in W.P.No. 8360 of 1997 is a Harijan; hence the order of acquisition upon which the lands were acquired from the first petitioner is liable to be quashed. The Government in its Memo No. 6300/II W.X./77-2, social Welfare, dated 6th July, 1977 have stated that the lands belonging to Harijan should not be acquired except where it becomes absolutely inevitable and in such cases the Collectors should obtain prior permission of the Government for including such lands in the land acquisition proposals. There is no dispute that it is only an administrative instruction to the Collectors. It is also not disputed that there is no such prohibition either in the Act ( XXXI of 1978) or in the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in W.P.No. 8360 of 1997, on the basis of the records, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the lands belonging to the first petitioner is also required for implementation of the Scheme. In such circumstance and in the absence of any specific provision in the Act and Rules and of the fact that compensation is to be paid for the lands of the first petitioner also, I do not find any reason to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
10: Regarding the first contention, the Act was enacted by the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1978 and it came into force from 24th September, 1979. Even though the said Act was struck down by this Court as ultra vires the Constitution of India and offending Article 14 by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 96 L.W. 48, subsequently the Supreme Court reversed the order of this Court and has held that Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1978 is ultra vires Article 14, except subsection (1) of Section 11, which is valid only to the extent it provides for payment of compensation of lump sum. The rest of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 11 regarding instalments, which is severable is violative of Article 14-vide State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, . The declaration made under Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that the Act is enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in Part IV, and in particular Article 46 of the Constitution, Among other provisions, we are concerned with Section 4 which speaks about power of the District Collector to acquire land for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme. The word "Harijans" is defined in Section 3(f) of the Act as follows:
"3(f) "Harijans" means members of the Scheduled Castes and include Scheduled Tribes."
Clause (g) defines "Harijan Welfare Scheme" as follows:
Sec. 3(g) "Harijan Welfare Scheme" means any scheme for provision of house-sites for Harijans for constructing, extending or improving any dwelling-house for Harijans or for providing any burial or burning grounds for Harijans or for providing any pathway leading to such dwelling-house, burial or burning grounds, or for providing any other amenity for the benefit of Harijans."
The power of the District Collector in regard to acquisition of land has been described in Section 4 as follows:
"4. Power to acquire land- (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section.
(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-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.
(3)(a) The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), pass such orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown;
(b) Where any officer authorised by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub- section (2), the officer so authorised shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendation on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deed fit."
The other provisions are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question raised, hence I am not referring to the same. By virtue of section 23 of the Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu framed Rules called 'Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979" and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24th September, 1979. Rule 3 speaks about the procedure as follows:
"3. Procedure for acquiring land, - (i) The District Collector or the Officer authorised by him in this behalf shall serve a show cause notice in Form I under sub-section (2) of Section 4 individually on the owner or on all persons interested in the land to be acquired If the owner or any other person interested in the land resides elsewhere than where the land is situated, the show cause notice shall be sent by registered posted (Acknowledgment Due) to the last known address of the owner of any other person interested.
(ii) The District Collector, if, after passing such orders as required by sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 4 is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire the land, notice in Form II to that effect shall be published in the District Gazette."
Here again, except Rule 3. we are not concerned with the other rules.
11. If the District Collector is satisfied for the purpose of implementing any Harijan Welfare Scheme and land is required for the same, it is open to him to acquire the said land by publishing in the Government Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, before publication of the notice under sub-section (1), either the District Collector or any Officer authorised by him call upon the owner or any other interested person to show- cause why it should not be acquired. Sub-section (3)(a) gives power to the District Collector to pass such orders as be may deed fit on the cause so shown and according to Clause (b) of sub-section(3) of Section 4, the officer after calling upon the owner or other person to show cause under sub-section (2), shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. Thereafter, the Collector, after considering the report of the officer so authorised, is to pass orders as he deems fit.
12. There is no dispute that the petitioners were given show cause notice by the Special Tahsildar (officer authorised by the District Collector) inviting their remarks or objections with regard to the proposal acquisition for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Scheme. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition, their grievance is that on receipt of the report from the Special Tahsildar as enunicated in sub-section (3)(b) of Section 4, the District Collector ought to have sent a copy of the said report to the landowners as well as the person interested. It is also their contention that on receipt of the report from the Special Tahsildar, the District Collector ought to have provided one more opportunity to the land owners by forwarding a copy of the said report to them to put-forth their contentions. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners very much relied on a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Bainsingh v. District Collector, Tirunelveli, . In that decision, aggrieved by the orders passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District-first respondent therein, dated 17.2.1997, the petitioner had approached this Court to quash the said order. The District Collector passed the order dated 17.2.1997 based on the report filed by the Tahsildar, before whom the petitioner therein appeared and filed her written submissions. It was contended before the Division Bench that without giving an opportunity to establish her case, the Collector had passed the order on the basis of the report filed by the Tahsildar. Accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench after holding that petitioner therein was not given an opportunity before passing the order by the Collector, set aside the order dated 17.2.1997 of the Collector and directed him to pass fresh orders after giving her an opportunity of being heard. The said direction has been very much pressed into service before me.
13. I have already extracted section 4 of the Act, particularly clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section 4. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that the petitioners were given show cause notices by the Special Tahsildar (Officer authorised by the District Collector) and that they have submitted their objections before the said Officer, As per clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section, 4, a duty is cast on the District Collector to pass appropriate orders after considering the report of the Special Tahsildar. In other words, there is no specific provision for furnishing copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or making any further enquiry as claimed by the petitioners. Though the learned Judges in the said decision, viz.,Thirumathi Pushpa Bai Bainsingh v. District Collector, Tirunelveli, have set aside the order of the Collector and directed him to give an opportunity to the petitioner therein, in the light of any such provision in section 4(3)(b) and in the absence of any discussion by the learned Judges with reference to the above mentioned provision, with respect I am of the view that the said decision has to be confined only to the facts in that case. In this regard, it is to be noted that in order to ameliorate the grievances of thousands of Harijans in this State, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1978. As I have already mentioned the object of the Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in Part IV, and in particular Article 46 of the Constitution of India. Since the State Legislature thought that recourse to the Central Act, viz., Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be a time consuming and it is very difficult to implement the Harijan welfare schemes for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they enacted the present Act, namely, Act XXXI of 1978. Further, all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 were considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, Their Lordships have considered section 4 as well as sub sections (1),(2),(3) (a) and (b) to Section 4 and ultimately upheld the provisions of the Act except sub-section (1) of Section 11. It is also clear that the provisions of section 4 substantially encapsulate the provisions of sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act). As observed by Their Lordships in Ananthi Ammal's case, , the only major difference being that, under the Tamil Nadu Act, it is the District Collector and not the State Government (as under Land Acquisition Act) who must be satisfied that the land is required to be acquired. After holding so, Their Lordships have concluded that "it does not appear to us that this a provision (section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act) which is unreasonable or arbitrary."
14. At this stage, Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, after taking me through sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act), would submit that after enquiry under section 5-A of that Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has to simply forward the entire proceedings including the objection of the landowners as well as the views of the requisitioning body to the Government for taking appropriate decision and making declaration under section 6. He would also submit that on receipt of those materials, the Government is to pass orders and issue declaration. According to him, after completion of enquiry under section 5-A of the Central Act, no further enquiry is contemplated in the Act at the hands of the State Government before making declaration under section 6. Comparing those provisions, he would submit that here in the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the Special Tahsildar sends show cause notice to the landowners and the persons interested, receives their objections and makes a report to the District Collector for passing appropriate orders under clause (b) to sub- section (3) of Section 4. In the light of his contention, I have carefully perused Sections 4 to 6 of the Central Act as well as sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. As rightly contended by Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, there is no need to issue further notice or make enquiry at the hands of the State Government while passing declaration under section 6 (Central Act). Here again, in the absence of any provision in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4, there is no mandatory on the part of the Collector to send a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar and conduct further enquiry as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. When there is a specific omission by the Legislature, taking note of the object in enacting the Legislation, it is not open to the Court to give different meaning what is not actually intended or included in the Statute.
15. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Vedanayagam, S.P. v. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu etc., and 2 others, 1996 W.L.R. 348 would contend that Tamil Nadu Act being expropriatory in nature and having regard to the rigor of its provisions, the affected persons must be provided with one more opportunity at the hands of the District Collector. No doubt, while considering Act 31 of 1978, Lakshmanan, J., in the said decision, has expressed that the said Act being expropriatory in nature and having regard to the rigor of its provisions, the opportunity to show cause why the land should not be acquired should be given, as it is a statutory requirement and the compliance thereof has therefore to be strictly adhered to. The learned Judge, after referring to section 4(2) of the Act, observed that the land owner or the person interested must be given show cause notice under section 4(2) of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to show cause notice under section 4(2). Admittedly, in our cases, the petitioners were given show cause notices by the Special Tahsildar, - an Officer authorised by the District Collector under section 4(2). As a matter of fact, the judgment of AR. lakshmanan, J., cited supra makes it clear that the one and the only opportunity given to the land owner or a person interested is on the issue of the show cause notice under section 4(2) of the Act. Hence, it is clear that an opportunity to show cause is provided only in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and no further enquiry or opportunity is required or provided in Clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section 4. Hence the decision referred to above does not support the claim of the petitioners.
16. I have already observed that Sections 4 to 6 of the Central Act are similar to Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act. While considering the claim that second opportunity has to be given before issuance of section 6 notification, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hussain v. State of Gujarat, turned down the said claim.
In this regard, the following conclusion of Their Lordships is relevant:
(16) The last proposition of Mr. Sanghi was that even though an inquiry under S. 5-A may be an administrative inquiry. The State Government was bound to give an opportunity to be heard to the appellants after receiving the report thereunder and before making up its mind for purposes of issuing section 6 notification. It is not in dispute that during Section 5-A inquiry the appellants were heard and their objections were taken on record. Under Section 5-A, the collector has to bear the objections of the owner, take them on record and then submit his report to the Government. The Section also requires him to send along with his report the entire record of his enquiry which would include the objections. The report has merely recommendatory value and is not binding on the Government. The record has to accompany the report as it is for the Government to form independently its satisfaction. Both are sent to enable the Government to form its satisfaction that the acquisition is necessary for a public purpose or for the company. It is then that section 6 notification which declares that particular land is needed for either of the two purposes is issued. The Government thus had before it not only the opinion of Master but also all that the appellants had to say by way of objections against the proposed acquisition. The appellants therefore had an opportunity of being heard. Neither section 5-A nor any other provision of the Act lays down that a second opportunity has to be given before the issuance of Section 6 notification. This contention also therefore cannot be sustained."
Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Kalumiya v. State of Gujarat, .
17. Mr.C. Selvaraj by relying on the last sentence in Clause (b) to sub-section 3 of Section 4, namely, "After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit", contended that in the light of the provision made therein, the District Collector has to furnish copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders after affording one more opportunity to the land owners or the persons interested. In the light of the discussions mentioned above I am unable to accept the said contention. I hold that in the absence of any such enabling provision in Clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section 4, the failure on the part of the District Collector to furnish a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar cannot vitiate the enquiry. Further as observed by Their Lordships, no second hearing is provided in that clause, namely, at the stage when the District Collector is considering the when the District Collector is considering the report of the Special Tahsildar under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act.
18. Under these circumstances, I hold that the landowner or the person interested is entitled to notice only under sub- section(2) of section 4 of the Act and if the same is fully complied with by either the District Collector or any officer authorised by him, there is no need to furnish a copy of the report of the Officer authorised (Special Tahsildar), nor any further enquiry at the hands of the District Collector under clause (b) to sub-section (3) of Section 4. To put it clear, the one and the only opportunity given to the landowner or the person interested is on the issue of show cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Act and if it is complied with, the District Collector has to pass appropriate orders under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act on the basis of the report of the Special Tahsildar. Accordingly I reject the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am satisfied that the respondents have fully complied with the provisions of the Act and Rules and I do not find any acceptable reason to interfere with the said proceedings; consequently both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. This court records the ample assistance rendered by Mr.C. Selvaraj and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan for the disposal of the above cases.
W.M.P.Nos. 13330 of 1997, 16541 of 1997 and 17618 to 17621 of 1998.
19. Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Sangam, Pudukottai District represented by its President has filed W.M.Ps.Nos. 17618 to 17621 of 1998 seeking permission to implead them as third respondent in the above writ petitions and to vacate the interim injunction granted earlier in the said writ petitions. The landowners aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings have filed the above writ petitions on various grounds. The District Collector has initiated the acquisition proceedings in order to implement Harijan Welfare Scheme in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to implead the petitioner-Sangam as third respondent as claimed by them. In other words, they are neither a necessary nor a proper party for the disposal of the writ petitions. Accordingly the impleading petitions are dismissed; consequently the petitions for vacation of the injunction order granted earlier are dismissed, and the interim injunction granted earlier are vacated.