IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 19-03-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.23162 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2010 Nesamani .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Govt. Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Rep. By its Managing Director. 3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 4.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) SIPCOT-Oragadam Extension, Unit-II Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice, dated 16.10.2008 published in G.O.Ms.No.189, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), under Section 3(1) of the Tamil nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 an quash the same in so far as it relates to the land measuring an extent of 92 cents comprised in Survye No.123/1C, Chennakuppam Villag,e Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, belonging to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to utilize the said land for her own use. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thankasivan For Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General, for Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate (R1, R3 & R4) Mr.M.Devaraj (R2) O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed praying or a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 16.10.2008, published in G.O.Ms.No.189, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, in so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioner, measuring an extent of 92 cents, comprised in Survey No.123/1C, Chennakuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
2. The petitioner has stated that she is the absolute owner of the land in question, as she had purchased the same, under a registered sale deed, dated 10.10.1996, registered as Document No.211 of 1997, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Walajabad. Since then she has been cultivating the same, along with the lands owned by her husband and her other family members.
3. In the year, 2007, when land acquisition proceedings were initiated, in respect of certain lands owned by the petitioner and her family members in Chennakuppam and Oragadam villages, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.3112 of 2007, challenging the said proceedings. During the course of the hearing of the said writ petition, based on the submission made on behalf of the respondents therein that the petitioners request for allotment of an industrial plot to the petitioner would be considered favourably, the writ petition had been withdrawn. Thereafter, since no alternate land had been given to the petitioner and as there was only a lease deed that had been executed in favour of the petitioners husband, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.16411 of 2009, to direct the respondents therein to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners husband. This Court had directed the authorities concerned to consider the request and to pass appropriate orders thereon. However, no favourable order had been passed, based on the request made by the petitioners husband. While so, a notice, dated 25.11.2008, had been issued, under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, had been served on the petitioner, in respect of the 92 cents of land owned by the petitioner. Even though a written objection had been submitted at the office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, the third respondent herein, no formal enquiry had been conducted, as indicated in the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner had learnt that a notice, under Section 3(1) of the Act, had also been issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the authority concerned had issued the notification, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, without initiating proceedings, as contemplated under Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. Thus, the authority concerned had acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner and therefore, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside. The impugned proceedings have been initiated by the authority concerned, without conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and it is also in violation of the rights guaranteed, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the respondent authorities had not followed the mandatory provisions prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, before acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, the third respondent herein, had not applied his mind before satisfying himself that there was a necessity of initiating the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. Even though the acquisition of land could be done for the setting up of industries by the Government, the acquisition of lands cannot be made for the purpose of conveying the said lands to private business houses. Unlike the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, does not provide for the acquisition of lands for the purpose of allotment to private companies. In the present case the acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the name of SIPCOT, in order to allot the acquired lands to private companies, without constructing the necessary buildings, or making other developments. Thus, the land acquisition proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, and the Constitution of India.
6. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, had stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had accorded administrative sanction for the acquisition of the lands, in G.O.Ms.No.7, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 23.1.2008, in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, for the expansion of the existing industrial complex at Oragadam. Accordingly, notices under Section3 (2)of the Act had been sent to the petitioner, on 4.4.2008, in respect of her land measuring 92 cents, in S.No.123/1C, Chennakuppam Village, through registered post, which had been delivered to the petitioner, on 7.4.2008.
7. It had also been stated that a public notice, under Section 3(2) of the Act, had been issued, on 5.4.2008, in certain public places, including the office of the Collector at Kancheepuram, the Block Development Office, Kundrathur, Oragadam Police Station, the Office of the Sub Registrar, Walajabad, the Taluk Office, Sriperumbudur, the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram and the Village Administrative Officer of Chinnakuppam village. The notice had also been published in the daily newspapers like Financial Express, dated 8.4.2008 and Murasoli, dated 9.4.2008. In spite of such notices, having been issued the petitioner had not sent any objection for the acquisition of her land. As per the public notice an enquiry had been fixed, on 12.5.2008, and it had been postponed to 19.5.2008. The petitioner had failed to appear for the enquiry to submit her objections. After the enquiry was over the third respondent District Collector, had forwarded the proposal to the Government, through a letter, dated 14.6.2008, recommending for the issuance of a notice, under Section 3(1) of the Act, for the acquisition of a large extent of land, including the 92 cents belonging to the petitioner, in S.No.123/1C, Chennakuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
8. It had been further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a notice, dated 16.10.2008, under Section 3(1) of the Act, in G.O.Ms.No.189 Industries (SIPCOT-LA). Subsequently, a notice, under Section 4(2) of the Act, had been issued to the land owners to surrender possession of the lands which were being acquired. After the expiry of the permitted period, as contemplated under the Act, the fourth respondent had taken possession of the land belonging to the petitioner, along with the other lands, on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had handed over the lands to the second respondent, on 8.12.2008.
9. It had also been stated that after the notice, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, had been issued by way of a communication, dated 25.11.2008, the land owners were called for a meeting at the Collectorate, Kancheepuram, on 1.12.2008, with regard to the fixation of the value of the land, under Section 7(2) of the Act. The petitioner had failed to participate in the said meeting.
10. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had referred to the decision of this Court, made in M.Haridass V. State of T.N. [(2008) 5 MLJ 1174], to state that if the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, had been complied with, the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, cannot be contested.
11. By way of a reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the notices alleged to have been published in the daily newspapers, as she is an illiterate person. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also stated that, when some of the land owners had been issued individual notices, the respondents have not shown proper reasons for not issuing such individual notices to the petitioner.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the procedures prescribed, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, had not been complied with. From the original records placed before this Court, it is noted that the respondents had issued the necessary notices, as required under Section 3 of the Act. Thereafter, an enquiry had been held with a view to give an opportunity to the land owners concerned. However, the petitioner had failed to appear for the enquiry to submit her objections. Thereafter, a notice, under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, had been issued to the landowners to surrender possession of the land, which were being acquired. After the expiry of the period prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, the fourth respondent had taken possession of the land belonging to the petitioner, on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, the fourth respondent had handed over the land in question to the second respondent, on 8.12.2008. As such, it is clear that there has been substantial compliance of the procedures prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, by the respondents, in acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No -03-2010
Internet:Yes/No
csh
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamilnadu
Industries Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
Rep. By its Managing Director.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
SIPCOT-Oragadam Extension,
Unit-II Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh
Writ Petition No.23162 of 2009
-03-2010