Sri Meenakshi Mills Limittednow called Gujarat HeavyChemical Limited v. The Special Tahsildar Harijan Welfare Scheme, Madurai – 625 020 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.12.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANW.P.No.4029 of 2003Sri Meenakshi Mills Limittednow called Gujarat HeavyChemical Limited, rep. by itsPower of the Attorney,Mr.S.Ramesh, having its officeat T.P.K.Road, Madurai – 3. ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Special TahsildarHarijan Welfare Scheme,Madurai – 625 020.2.The District Collector,Collectorate,Madurai.... RespondentsPrayer : This Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedingsof the 2nd Respondent bearing reference No.84073/2002/L7 dated14.10.2002 published in Govt.Gazette No.37 dated 22.10.2002 andquash the same in respect of the land measuring 3.61 acres in OldS.No.119/1, and new S.No.32/1 of Paravai II Village, Madurai NorthTaluk, Madurai District and to direct the 2nd respondent not todisturb the possession of the petitioner. For the petitioner : R.Krishnamoorthy for Senior Counsel for M/S.Shivakumar & Suresh For the Respondents 1&2 : Mr.P.Gurunathan Government Advocate ORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings forland acquisition and it would affect the peaceful enjoyment of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance land measuring 6.51 Acres of the petitioners land. The landoriginally belonging to the company called Sree Meenakshi MillsLimited which was declared as "SICK UNIT" under the provisions ofthe Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. Thescheme of merger was sanctioned and pursuant to the said orders ofthe BIFR dated 26.11.2001 and 29.05.2002 and the Sree Meenakshi MillsLtd stands merged with Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd with effect from01.04.2001 and also directed to change the scheme from residentialproperties scheme to Industrial properties scheme under theprovisions of Sick Industrial Company Act 1985.2. The lands belonging to the petitioner was proposed to beacquired for providing house site patta to the poor houseless AdiDravidar people of Paravai Village. Show cause Notice U/S. 4(2) ofthe land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.04.2002 and got served uponthe land owner through the village Administrative Officer of ParavaiVillage on 17.04.2002. On 10.05.2002 a reply was given on behalf ofthe sick Company through counsel informing about the BIFRproceedings. The enquiry was conducted by Special Tahsildar, namelythe first respondent. 3. Pursuant to the enquiry, draft notification Under Section 4(1)of the land acquisition Act was approved by the Collector, Maduraivide proceedings Roc.No.84073/2002/L.7/ dated 14.10.2002 and the samewas published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Special EditionNo.37, dated 22.10.2002. Challenging the same, the present WritPetition has been filed.4. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioner submitted that a show cause notice was served on thepresent owners as ex-director Thiyagaraja Chettiar expired in 1973.However, a reply dated 10.05.2002 was given pursuant to the noticedated 15.04.2002 and the said reply was given by the counsel onbehalf of the petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the objection wasraised by way of the reply and petitioner's counsel appeared beforethe first respondent to press the objections. Without consideringthe objection, the second respondent approved the draftnotification Under Section 4(1) of the Act. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that theimpugned order would go to show that the first respondent did notapply his mind properly and mechanically dealt with the matter andhence proceedings are vitiated. Further he submitted that no reportby the authority, namely first respondent, was furnished to thepetitioner. If the above said recommendation was furnished to thepetitioner, he would have made further representation. Nonfurnishing of the report by the authorized officer would also vitiatethe proceedings and it also causes prejudice to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Mr.P.Gurunathan the learned Government Advocate wouldsubmit that after following due process of law prescribed under theLand Acquisition Act, the proceedings were initiated. In fact, aftergetting the recommendations from the authorized officer, the secondrespondent District Collector approved 4(1) notification. Moreoverthe lands are acquired only for allotting lands to weaker sections ofthe society namely Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The publicinterest is involved in this matter and the Government is intended tohelp the weaker sections. Hence he prays for dismissal of this WritPetition. 8. A perusal of the pleadings as well as the records would goto show prove that objection was raised by the petitioner on10.05.2002, Wherein the reference before BIFR was elaborately stated.9. It is the specific stand of the petitioner in the WritPetition in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that the Special Tahsildarsent a report to the Second Respondent for his decision withoutmarking a copy to the petitioner and the Second Respondent has passedan order dated 14.10.2002". Whereas in the Counter Affidavit in paragraph 6 filed by thefirst respondent it has been stated as follows:"With regard to the averments made in Para 8,9and 10 of the affidavit. I state that the contentionof the Writ Petitioner that he had respondent to thatnotice and made objections through Advocate andrequested to drop the land acquisition proceedingsare denied as false"It is seen from the records that the first respondent in page 2of his recommendations in mentioned as follows:-Ml;nrgidfs; "epy chpikahsUf;F nehl;O!; Kiwg;go rhh;;g[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ Fwpg;gpl;ljpdj;jpy; epy chpikahsh; M$uhftpy;iy/ Ml;nrgid kDit jdJ tf;fPy; K:yk;rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;"10. Hence, the Counter Affidavit filed by the first respondentis contrary to the records and the counter affidavit specificallystated that no objection was filed through Advocate. It is nothingbut misleading of the Court. The objections should have beenconsidered and given reasons and the first respondent did not overrule the objections. However the report proceeds on the basis thatas though there was no objection from the land and it only would goto show that non application of mind on the part of the firstrespondent and the first respondent mechanically and casually passedthe order. Therefore the entire proceedings got vitiated is liableto be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. As far as the furnishing of copy of the report to thepetitioner is concerned, the petitioner was not furnished with acopy of the recommendations from the first respondent pursuant to theenquiry conducted by the first respondent. No where in the counterthe point was met by the Respondent. 12. The first respondent did not choose to give a copy of therecommendations addressed to the District Collector to thepetitioner. Non furnishing of copy of the report for recommendationof the authorized officer definitely prejudice the petitioner, as thepetitioner lost the last chance of giving further representationgiving details of prejudice caused due to acquisition. A full Benchof this Court in R.Pari, -Vs- Special Tahsildar, Adi-DravidarWelfare, Devakkottai reported on 2006 (4) CTC 609 held that the ownershould be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of theauthorized officer. In this case no such a recommendation wasfurnished to the petitioner and there by denying furtherrepresentation to the Collector.13. As stated above, the objections of the petitioner was notconsidered by the first respondent. In view of that, the entireproceedings are vitiated. Apart from that non furnishing of therecommendations also vitiated the impugned proceedings.14. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugnedproceedings are quashed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar./true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.AdlTo1. The Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare Scheme, Madurai – 625 020.2. The District Collector,Collectorate,Madurai+ 1 cc to Mr.Shivakumar and Suresh, Advocate SR 67884+ 1 cc to Mr.P.Gurunathan, Govt., Advocate Sr 68131 W.P.No.4029 of 2003TRM (CO)RH (5.3.10)