The Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs R. Manickammal, L. Bathavatsal, L. ... on 12 February, 2002
6. The question as to whether the satisfaction of the Government for acquisition under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 is valid came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R. Manickammal reported in 2002 (2) CTC 1, wherein, the Honourable First Bench has held that what is required under Section 4(1) of the State Act is the satisfaction of the Collector and in that way, it differs from the Central Act, wherein it is the Government, which is the authority to decide about the requirement for public purposes. The Division Bench has categorically held that inasmuch as the Collector has not satisfied himself for the purpose of acquisition, for the benefit of the harijan welfare, the satisfaction of the Government is not legally maintainable and in view of the matter, the acquisition was held invalid. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the 4(1) Notification as it is elicited above clearly shows that the same is not in accordance with 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978.