V.DHANAPALAN,J.
This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 24.07.2002, passed in W.P.No.44309 of 2002, by a learned single Judge.
2. The chronological events, which led to the filing of this Writ Appeal, are as under :
On a request made by the Director, Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Bombay, the District Collector, Tirunelveli, proceeded to acquire the land to an extent of 13.44 acres, including the appellant's land admeasuring 4.87 acres in Survey Nos.51/2 and 51/3 at Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, for which the Government of Tamil Nadu issued Section 4 (1) Notification on 25.06.1987 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16.07.1987. Paper publication was given on 05.09.1987 and Form 3-A Notice was given for submission of objections if any, on 12.10.1987. On 20.10.1987, objections were filed. On 02.11.1987, Section 5-A enquiry was conducted by the second respondent. On 17.02.1988, the second respondent passed orders, excluding the land of the appellant. However, 31.08.1988,
Section 6 Declaration was passed in respect of the land of the appellant also and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 01.09.1988. On 10.08.1989, the appellant filed W.P.No.11417 of 1989, challenging
Section 6 Declaration. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 07.09.2000 with a direction to the appellant to make a representation to the Government for deletion of the land in question. Accordingly, on 23.11.2000, the appellant submitted a representation to the second respondent. On 31.08.2001, the second respondent passed an order, rejecting the request of the appellant. The said order of the second respondent was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.30290 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 24.07.2002. Hence, this Writ Appeal.
3. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has no other land except the land in question and, therefore, the said land has to be excluded from acquisition. However, at the end of his argument, the learned Senior Counsel made a plea that at least 10 cents of land, wherein the family deity of the appellant exists, may be exempted.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.
5. This Court, by an order dated 27.09.2002, directed the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk, to go go Krishnapuram Village and inspect the lands covered by Survey Nos.51/2 and 51/3 and get the lands surveyed through a Surveyor regarding the exact location of the temple of the family deity of the appellant and also the appurtenant lands of a dimension of 100 feet surrounding the temple, earmark the same, fix the peg stones, draw sketch and submit a report to the Court. Accordingly, the Tahsildar filed a report on 31.10.2002 before this Court through the Special Government Pleader.
6. In the report submitted by the Tahsildar, it is stated that the area marked in red in the sketch appended to the report is the place where the family deity is situated and the area marked in green is the area of a dimension of 100 feet, surrounding the temple.
7. Now, it is not the case of the appellant that the entire land of 4.87 acres, belonging to him in Survey Nos.51/2 and 51/3 at Krishnapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, be excluded from acquisition. The only plea of the appellant is that at least the area of 10 cents, wherein the temple of the family deity of the appellant exists, be excluded from acquisition, as the said deity is being worshipped from the time of his forefathers.
8. It is seen that while the land in question was acquired, the authorities had followed the procedure contemplated under the Act.
Section 4 (1) Notification was issued; notice was given for submission of objections, if any,; enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted and then a declaration was passed under
Section 6. Therefore, in the absence of any procedural errors in acquiring the land for a public purpose, we find no infirmity with the proceedings. Even on the principle of "eminent domain", in the interest of greater public purpose, the individual interest cannot be against it and the authorities have every right to take note of the public interest over the individual interest. The concept of eminent domain is an essential attribute of every State. This concept is based on the fundamental principle that the interest and claim of the whole community is always superior to the interest of an individual. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the said acquisition proceedings.
9. However, earlier, on 27.09.2002, there was a direction by this Court to the Tahsildar to inspect the land and get the same surveyed through a surveyor regarding the exact location of the temple of the family deity of the appellant, pursuant to which the Tahsildar inspected the area and filed a report, indicating the place of worship.
10. One of the salutary principles to followed by the authorities, while going in for acquisition of land for a public purpose, is that the temple land has to be exempted. The said principle is strengthened by G.O.Ms.No.1630, dated 26.09.1984.
11. Under the circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, taking into account that the deity is being worshipped from the time of appellant's forefathers, though the temple in question is of private character, in order to safeguard the religious sentiment of the appellant, direct the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for exclusion of 10 cents of land alone wherein the family deity of the appellant exists and pass appropriate orders to that effect.
12. Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.