Madras High Court · 2010

26183/08,26436/2008, 17850/09,17851/09,17852/09,30570/07,30221/07,2nd Respondent in WP 9348/08,9349/2008,12611/0813250 to 13254/08,13299 to 13304/08, 13041 to 13043/08,16942/08,20442/08,21335/08,12677 to12683/08,18461/08,13549/09, 3rd respondent in 20431 to 20433/08.The Special Thasildar (LA)Irankattukuttai ExtensionScheme -I Phase VII,II,IVSriperubudur, KancheepuramDistrict...3rd Respondent in WP 10918/08,9348,9349/08, 5th respondent inWP 26183/08,26436/08, 17850/09,17851,17852/09,30570/07,30221/07, 3rd Respondent in WP 12671/08 and 13250 to 13254/08 ,13299 to 13304/08, 13041 to 13043/08 , 16942/08, 20442/08,21335/08,12677 to 12683/08, 18461/08,13549/09, 2ndRespondent WP 20431 to 20433/2008.The District Revenue Officer,Kancheepuram District,Collector's Office CompoundKancheepuram..4th Respondent WP 26183/2008,26436/08 WP 17850/09,17851/09, 17852/09,30570/2007,30221/2007.Prayer in W.P.No.10918 of 2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certioraricalling for the records relating to the Modification issued inG.O.Ms.No.64 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 14.3.2008 and publishedin th Tamilnadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 14.3.2008by the Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9 the First respondent herein under section 3(1) ofthe Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 97and the notice issued in Form E under rule 9 and Sub Section (2)of Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Act 10/99 by the District Collector,Kancheepuam District the Second Respondent herein and quash thesame in so far with respect to the vacant plot of the petitionersherein bearing plot No.21 and comprised in S.No.90/2B and 90/3 asper registered sale deed and S.No.90/71 as per the notificationissued by the first respondent in an extent of 2387 square feet andsituated in Pillaipakkam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, KancheepuramDistrict. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.Nos.26183 of 2008 and 26436 of 2008: These petitions filed under article 226 of constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the impugned notice dated 3.10.2007Ref.No.Na.Ka.113 of 2007 A2 of the 3rd respondent issued to thepetitioner under section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition ofLands for industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the consequentialnotice of 5th respondent dated 30-7-2008 Ref.No. 25 of 2007 of the5h respondent, in respect of the petitioners farm land bearing FarmNo.9, measuring 7200 and 6960 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos. 107/5& 108/2, now bearing Survey Nos.107/5 and 108/2C3 and 107/4respectively in Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kanchepuram District and quash the same and all consequentialproceedings and consequently direct the respondents authorities toexclude the petitioners land from the acquisition proceedings.Prayer in W.P.No.17850 of 2009:-This petition filed under article 226 of constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the impugned notification under Section 3(1)of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of lands for Industrial purposes Act1997 published in Government Gazette G.O.Ms.Nos.90 Industries(SIPCOT-LA) dated 3.4.08 in respect of the petitioner's landcomprised in Survey Nos. 44/2A, 44/2B, 44/3A, 454/3B, 44/3C, 44/4,44/5, 44/6, 44/7A, 44/7B, 44/9A, 44/9B, 44/9C, 44/10, 44/11, 44/12,44/13, 44/14, 45/1A, 45/1B, 45/1C, 45/2, 45/3, 45/4, 45/5, 45/6A,45/6B Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, KancheepuramDistrict belonging to the petitioner company and quash the same andall consequential proceedings and consequently direct therespondents to allow the petitioner company to use the said landsfor its own purposes.Prayer in W.P.No.17851 and 17852 of 2009:-These petitions filed under article 226 of constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the impugned Notification under section 3(1) ofthe Tamilnadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997published in Government Gazette G.O.ms. Nos. 92, 91 Industries(SIPCOT - LA) dt 3.4.2008, in respect of the petitioners landcomprised in Survey Nos. 19/2A1, 19/2A2, 19/2B1, 19/2B2, 20/5B,23/1, 23/2, 23/4, 23/6, 23/7A, 23/7B, 23/7C, 24/1, 24/2, 25/8,25/9, 25/10, 25/12, 25/13, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/3A, 26/3B, 26/3C,27/2, 27/3, 28/7, 28/9A, 28/9C, and 46/A2, 46/A3, 46/A/4A, 46/A4B,46/A15, 46/A16, 54A/1A, 54A/1B, 54A/1C, 54A/2A, 54A/2B, 54A/3A,54A/3C, 54A/3C, 54A/3D, 54A/3E respectively in Pillaipakkam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram district, belonging tothe petitioner company and quash the same and all consequentialproceedings and consequently direct the respondents to allow thepetitioner company to use the said land for its own purposes.prayer in W.P.Nos.30570 and 30221 of 2007:This petition filed under article 226 of constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the impugned notices issued under Sec.3(2) ofthe Tamil Nadu Acquisition of lands for Industrial Purposes Act,1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999) dated 3/8/2007 Ref. No. Na.Ka.5 of2007 and notices dated 4/8/2007 Ref. No.Na.Ka.7 of 2007 and 6/2007,issued to the petitioners in respect of the petitioners landcomprised in Survey Nos. 25/2A, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5, 26/6, 25/7, 27/1,28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/5, 28/6A, 28/6C, 28/8A, 28/8B, 43/1, 43/2A andaddressed to the first petitioner's predecessors in titleM/s.Pandian Real Estates in respect of the land measuring an extentof 45 acres comprised in survey nos.45/4, 45/5, 44/2B, 44/2A,44/9B, 44/4, 44/6, 44/9C, 44/10, 45/6A, 45/6B, 45/11, 44/5, 44/12,44/13, 45/6B, 44/14, 44/6, 45/1A, 45/1B, 45/1C, 45/2, 45/3, 44/3A,44/3B, 44/3C, 44/7A, 44/7B, 44/9A, 44/9B, 54A/3B, 54A/3A, 54A/3E,46A/1, 46 A/2, 46 A/3, 46A/4A, 46A/4B, 46A/5, 46A/6, 54A/1A,54A/1B, 54A/1C, 54A/2A, 54A/2B, 54A/3C, 54A/3D, 19/2A2, 19/2A1,26/2A, 26/2B, 23/6, 27/2, 19/2B1, 23/7B, 24/1, 24/2, 25/8, 25/9,25/10, 25/12, 25/13, 26/1, 26/3A, 26/3B, 26/3B, 26/3C, 28/9A,28/9C, 20/5A, 20/5B, 28/7, 23/7, 23/1, 20/1, 23/4, 28/9B, 23/7C,23/7A, 27/3, 21/A2 and 19/2B2 Pillaipakkam Village, SriperumbudurTaluk, Kancheepuram District belonging to the petitioner and firstpetitioner company and quash the same and all consequentialproceedings and consequently direct the respondents to allow thefirst petitioner company to set up its Industrial Technology parkin the said lands and consequently direct the respondents toexclude the petitioner land from the acquisition proceedings.Prayer in W.P.Nos.9348 and 9349 of 2008: These petitions filed under article 226 of constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus callingfor the records of the 1st respondent notice in G.O.Ms.No. 50,Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 10-3-2008 and the consequential orderof the 2nd respondent in R.C. No. 79/07 IR KKIA2 dated 20-3-2008and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.12611 of 2008: This petition filed under article 226 of constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus call for therecords comprised in Form-A notice issued by the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 07.09.2007 and declaration made under section 3(1) inG.O.Ms.No. 48 Industries Department, (SIPCOT LA) dated 10.3.2008 aspublished in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.73, dated 10.03.2008 and the consequential Form-E Notice dated20.03.2008 in respect of the lands of the petitioner in Plot No.3,measuring an extent of 10962 sq.ft. comprised in S.No. 253/1 C,253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A, 253/1B, 253/1C, 253/8C of vengaduVillage, Sriperumbudur Tk. Kancheepuram District and quasht he sameand consequently forbear the respondents from acquiring the saidlands of the petitioner. W.P.NOS.13550 TO 13554 of 2008 :-These Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records comprised in Form A notice issued by the ThirdRespondent dated 7.9.2007 and declaration made under section 3(1)of G.O.Ms.No.64,48,46 Industries Department (SIPCOT LA) dated14.3.2008 as published in Tamilnadu Government GazetteExtraordinary M.O.No.73 and 78 dated 14.3.2008 and theconsequential Form E Notice dated 14.3.2008 and the ConsequentialForm E Notice dated 3.4.2008 and 20.3.2008 respect of the land ofthe petitioner measuring on extent of 15.7 cents comprised inS.No.257/7E, S.No.257/9C, (Asper Form E Notice S.No.257/1) ofVengadu Village, in respect of land of the petitioner measuring onextent of 11,047 Sq.ft., comprised in S.NO.253/1D, S.No.253/1E,S.No.253/6, S.No.253/7, S.NO.253/9B, S.No.253/9C (Asper Form ENotice S.No.253/1B1F), of Vengadu Village, in respect of land ofthe petitioner measuring on extent of 11,712 Sq.ft., comprised inS.No.253/1E, S.No.253/7, S.No.253/9B, S.No.253/9D, S.No.253/9E(Asper Form E Notice S.No.253/1B1E), of Vengadu Village, inrespect of the land of the petitioner measuring on extent of 13.50Cents comprised in S.NO.257/7F, S.No.257/G1, S.No.257/7G2,S.No.257/7G3 and S.NO.257/9D, (Asper Form E Notice S.No.257/9D) ofVengadu Village, in respect of land of the petitioner measuring onextent of 9063 Sq.ft., comprised in S.NO.253/1D, S.No.253/1E,S.NO.253/5, S.NO.253/6, S.NO.253/9A, S.No.253/9B, S.NO.253/9C,(Asper Form E Notice S.No.253/1B5) of Vengadu Village,respectively, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quashthe same and consequently forbear the respondents from acquiringthe said land of the petitioner.PRAYER IN WP Nos.13299 to 13304 of 2008These petitioner filed under article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records comprised in Form A Notice issued by the 3rdrespondent dated 7.9.2007 and declaration made under Section 3(1)of G.O.Ms.No.64, 48 Industries Department (SIPCOT LA) dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.3.2008 as published in the Tamilnadu Government GazetteExtraordinary No.73 and 78 dated 14.3.2008, 10.3.2008 andconsequential Form E Notice dated 3.4.2008, 20.3.2008 in respect ofthe lands of the petitioner measuring on extent of Acre 1 and 18cents comprised in S.No.257/7C, S.No.251/3A, S.No.257/7D3,S.NO.257/7D5, S.NO.257/7D6, S.NO.257/7D7, (Asper Form E NoticeS.No.257/1) and in respect of the land of the petitioner, measuringon extent of 22.99 cents and 23.58 cents, comprised inS.No.251/13A, S,No.257/7D6, S.NO.257/7D7 and S.NO.251/3A,respectively (Asper Form E Notice S.NO.251/3A) and in respect ofthe land of the petitioner measuring on extent of 10225 Sq.ft.,comprised in S.No.251/2A, S.No.251/2B5, S.No.251/2B6, (Asper Form ENotice S.No.251/2A4) and in respect of land of the petitionermeasuring on extent of 33.97 cents comprised in S.NO.257/7B,S.NO.257/7E, S.NO.257/9B and S.NO.257/9C (Asper Form E NoticeS.NO.257/1) and in respect of land of the petitioner measuring onextent of 9711 Sq.ft., comprised in S.NO.253/10B (Asper form ENotice S.NO.253/1B1H) and in respect of the land of the petitionermeasuring on extent of 10225 Sq.ft., comprised in S.NO.251/2A,S.NO.251/2B4, S.NO.251/2B5 (Asper Form E Notice S.No.251/2A3)Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District andquash the same and consequently forbear the respondents fromacquiring the said land of the petitioner.PRAYER IN WP NOS.13041 TO 13043 OF 2008These petitioner filed under article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records comprised in Form A Notice issued by the 3rdrespondent dated 7.9.2007 and declaration made under Section 3(1)of G.O.Ms.No.48 Industries Department (SIPCOT LA) dated 10.3.2008as published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette ExtraordinaryNo.73 dated 10.3.2008 and consequential Form E Notice dated20.3.2008 in respect of the lands of the petitioner measuring onextent of 10574 Sq.ft., comprised in S.No.251/2B6, (Asper Form ENotice S.No.251/2A1C) and in respect of the land of the petitioner,measuring on extent of 10792 Sq.ft., respectively comprised inS.No.253/1, 253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A, (Asper Form ENotice S.No.253/1B41) and in respect of the land of the petitionermeasuring on extent of 10762 Sq.ft., comprised in S.No.253/1C,253/3, 253/4, 253/8C, 253/9A (Asper patta 253/1B1C) of VengaduVillage, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District andconsequently forbear the respondents from acquiring the said landsof the petitioner and quash the same.PRAYER IN WP NOS.16942 OF 2008These petitioner filed under article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the records comprised in Form-A notice issued by the thirdRespondent dated 07.09.2007 and declaration made under Section 3(1) in G.O.Ms.48 Industries Department (SIPCOT LA) dated10.03.2008 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government GazetteExtraordinary No.73 dated 10.03.2008 and the consequential Form-ENotice dated 20.03.2008 in respect of the lands of the petitionermeasuring an extent of 14179 sq.ft comprised in S.No.251/3A251/3B & 251/3B2 (As per Form-E Notice S.No.251/3A) of VengaduVillage, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and quash thesame and consequently forbear the respondents from acquiring thesaid lands of the petitioner.PRAYER IN WP NOS.20442 of 2008 and 21335 of 2008These petitioner filed under article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callingfor the records relating to the Notification issued inG.O.Ms.No.68 Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA) dated 14.03.2008and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette ExtraordinaryPart II Section 2 dated 14.03.2008 by the first respondent hereinunder Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forIndustrial Purposes Act 1997 and quash the same in so for withrespect to the vacant plot of the petitioner, herein bearing PlotNo.7 and 53 and comprised in S.No.90/1 & 90/6A and 90/4 (Asper theRegistered sale Deed dated 26.2.2007 and S.No.90/68 & 90/66 (Asperthe notification issued by the first respondent and in on extent of2800 Sq.ft., and 1800 Sq.ft., situated in Pillaipakkam Village,Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.NOs.12677 to 12683 of 2008:These Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to the Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.68 Industries(SIPCOT-LA) dated 14.3.2008 and published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette Extraordinary dated 14.3.2008 by the the firstrespondent herein under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisitionof Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the notice issued inForm E under Rule 9 and sub-section (2) of section 4 of the TamilNadu Act 10/1999 by the second respondent herein and quash the samein so far with respect to the vacant plot of the petitioner hereinbearing No.103,20,51,74,65,38 and comprised in S.No.90/5A, 90/2A,90/3 ;and 90/6A, 90/2B, 90/4, 90/5B2, S.No.90/5B2,90/5B3,90/6B,93/1B (New SF No.90/24B & 93/37),90/6B, 93/1B (New SFNo.90/24B & 93/37) as per registrered sale deed and S.No.90/28,90/8, 90/16, S.No.90/53, 90/54, 90/B3, 90/24 as per notification(issued by the first respondent in an extent of 2400, 2387, 2387, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2400, 3000, 1200, 1200 Sq.feet) respectively and situated inPillaipakkam village Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.Prayer in W.P.Nos.18461 of 2008:This petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of mandamus to calling for the records ofthe 3rd respondent dated 4.7.2007 in Na.Ka.No. A2/79/2007 and quashthe same and consequently forbear the respondents from in anymanner interferring with the possession and enjoyment of thepetitioner in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 33/2 and 33/7in Thirumoolar Nagar Eastern Extension Part-I situated at No. 158Pillaipakkam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kanchipuram Districtwhich on admittedly pending before the 3rd respondent ascommunicated by the 2nd respondent.Prayer in W.P.Nos.20431 to 20433 of 2008:-These petitions filed under Article 226 of constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified calling for therecords relating to the Notification isued in G.O.ms.No. 90,91(Industries) (Sipcot LA) dt. 3.4.2008 and published in the TamilNadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 3.4.2008 by the firstrespondent herein under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisitionof Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and quash the same in sofar with respect to the vacant plots of the petitioners hereinbearing Government Dry SF No.39-2A1-0.16.5 Hectares, S.F No.39-2B-0.11.5 Hectares, SF No.40-2A-1850 Sq.metres, S.F.No.40-2B-1950 Sqmetres contained in G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 3.4.08 and S.F.No.48/2C-0.34.5 Hectares, 0.64.0 Hectares comprised in S.No.39-2A2A,SF.No.39.2A2B- 0.11.5 Hectares situated in Pillaipakkam Village,Sriperumbudur Taluk as per registered sale deed and as pernotification issued by the frist respondent. Prayer in W.P.No.13549 of 2009:This petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to the proceedings No.Na.Ka. 67 of 2007 dt 26.6.2007issued by the 2nd respondent under section 3 (2) of T.N.Acquisition of land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 (T.N.Act.10/1999) signed on 7.8.2007 by the 3rd respondent and consequenceNotification published in Tamilnadu Government GazetteExtraordinary No. 73 dt 10.3.2008 by the 1st respondent hereinudner section 3 (1) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land forIndustrial Purposes Act 1997 and notice dt 23.7.2008 issued by the3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.9 of 2007 in respect of the SurveyNo.73/A-3 and 78/1B is concerned and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner in:Mr.Mr.R.GovindarajWP:10918/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.S.Thanka SivanWP:26183, 26436/200817850 to 17852/2009, 30221 and 30570/2007 For Petitioners in:Mr.J.Saravana VelWP:9348 and 9349of 2008For Petitioners in:Mr.R.MuthukumarasamyWP:12611, 13250 to Senior Counsel 13254, 13299 to 13304,for M/s.Ramalingam and13041 to 13043/2008 &Associates16942 of 2009For Petitioners in:Mr.N.DamodaranWP:12677 to 12682,20442 and 21335/08For Petitioner in:Mr.R.Vijayakhumar WP:18461/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.K.RamachandranWP:20431 to 20433/08For Petitioner in:Mr.YashodvardhanWP:13549/2009Senior Counsel for Mr.C.PrabakaranFor Respondents:Mr.P.S.Raman,in all WPs.Advocate Generalassisted by Mr.T.SeenivasanAdditional Govt. Pleaderfor respondents (Government)and for M/s.M.Devarajfor respondent-SIPCOTORDERThe issue involved in these cases is relating to theacquisition proceedings in respect of the lands situated in variousvillages at Sriperumbudur Town and Taluk, namely Pillaipakkam,Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (for brevity, "Act 10 of1999") for the Irunkattukottai Expansion Scheme Unit 4 and thechallenge relates to the notifications issued under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999.2. All the writ petitioners are owners of various plotscomprised in various survey numbers in respect of which noticeswere issued under the provisions of Act 10 of 1999.3.1. W.P.No.10918 of 2008 relates to Plot No.21 comprised inSurvey Nos.90/2B and 90/3 as per registered sale deed and SurveyNo.90/71 as per the notification to an extent of 2387 square feetat Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Districtin respect of which notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of1999 in G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 14.3.2008 andnotice as per Rule 9 and Section 4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in Form-Ewere issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District.3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased theplot for putting up construction for his residential purpose andthat the layout for residential purpose in the said survey numbershas already been approved by the Deputy Director of Town andCountry Planning and the Commissioner, Panchayat Union,Sriperumbudur. He was served with a notice in Form-E under Section4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 directing to surrender possession of thesaid land within thirty days. Later he realized that theGovernment wanted to expand Irungattukottai Industrial Complex bySIPCOT and for that purpose acquisition proceedings have beeninitiated.3.3. The case of the petitioner is that no procedurecontemplated under Act 10 of 1999 was followed, no notice underSection 3(2) was given, and no enquiry was conducted by givingnotice to the owner as per Section 2(g) of Act 10 of 1999. It isthe complaint of the petitioner that the procedure contemplatedunder Section 14 of Act 10 of 1999 for service of notice has notbeen followed and the enquiry was only an empty formality and noreasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before theacquisition proceedings have been initiated.4.1. W.P.No.26183 of 2008 relates to the land measuring 7200sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.107 and 108/2, present SurveyNos.107/5 and 108/2C3, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District and the petitioner challenges the noticeissued under Section 3(2) of the Act 10 of 1999 dated 3.10.2007 bythe District Collector, Kancheepuram and the consequential noticeof the Special Tahsildar, Irunkattukottai Extension Scheme, dated30.7.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving thenotice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 calling for objectionswithin thirty days, the petitioner approached the Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) and submitted his objections, mainly to theeffect that the land is a farm land forming part of a farm plotdeveloped by M/s.Beauty Green Farms (P) Limited and that they arecarrying on agricultural activities and therefore, the action ofthe respondents is against the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 andthe Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act,2005 and hence, such lands cannot be allotted to private companies.4.3. It is stated that the Special Tahsildar (LandAcquisition) has informed that a notice would be sent for enquiryand a further representation was sent on 15.3.2008 by registeredpost and on 28.3.2008 they received a letter stating that theobjections have been sent to Special District Revenue Officer,SIPCOT and thereafter, a letter dated 30.7.2008 was receiveddirecting the petitioner to hand over possession and the challengeis on the ground that the mandatory procedure contemplated underAct 10 of 1999 has not been followed and that acquisition offarmlands is opposed to the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005(Central Act 28 of 2005); that "industrial purpose" defined underAct 10 of 1999 relates to the industry to be established by theappropriate Government and not to be promoted by privateindividuals or companies; and that the District Collector is notcompetent to issue such notice and even otherwise, the notice isinvalid since it violates Sections 25 and 15 of Act 10 of 1999.5. Similarly, W.P.No.26436 of 2008 relates to the landmeasuring 6960 sq.ft. stated to be farmland comprised in SurveyNos.107 and 108/2, and now bearing Survey No.107/4, PillaipakkamVillage, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Theacquisition proceedings are questioned on the same grounds.6.1. Likewise, W.P.No.17850 of 2009 relates to the landscomprised in Survey Nos.44/2A 44/2B, 44/3A, 44/3B, 44/3C,44/4, 44/5, 44/6, 44/7A, 44/7B, 44/9A, 44/9B, 44/9C, 44/10,44/11, 44/12, 44/13, 44/14, 45/1A, 45/1B, 45/1C, 45/2,45/3, 45/4, 45/5, 45/6A, and 45/6B situated at PillaipakkamVillage, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, wherein thenotification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 inG.O.Ms.No.90, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 3.4.2008 is challengedon the ground that the petitioner/Company has purchased the landfor setting up its own industrial technology park. 6.2. It is stated that the proposal of purchasing the land atPillaipakkam Village was informed to the Government. It is alsostated that at the time of purchase they learnt that there was someproposal and administrative sanction by the Government for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquisition of the lands in the said village for allotment by theSIPCOT for private industries, but no steps have been taken. It isstated that the petitioner/Company was made to understand that theGovernment would encourage private negotiations by industries andit was thereafter, the purchase was made and at that time when theDistrict Revenue Officer has objected for registration, this Courthas given direction in W.P.No.10909 of 2007, based on which the SubRegistrar, Sriperumbudur has registered the document and it is thecase of the petitioner that in the said writ petition Government aswell as SIPCOT were parties and they have not raised any objection.6.3. It is stated that after purchase of the property thepetitioner/Company has developed the same and only thereafter thepetitioner understood that notice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of1999 was issued to the petitioner's predecessor firm, M/s.PandianReal Estate, Chennai to which the vendors of the petitioner/companywere partners. It is also stated that the said notice underSection 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 was issued only to oblige bigindustrial houses and preliminary objections were submitted on30.8.2007 to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and thepetitioner was informed that the respondents will be proceedingfurther for issue of notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of1999. The petitioner has challenged the notice under Section 3(2)of Act 10 of 1999 in W.P.No.30221 of 2007 and pending the writpetition, the impugned notice under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999came to be published. Therefore, the said writ petition along withW.P.No.30221 of 2007 challenge the proceedings under Section 3(1)of Act 10 of 1999 issued in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries(SIPCOT-LA), dated 3.4.2008 on various grounds, including that"industrial purpose" denotes only the industry to be established bythe Government and not by private parties; that after the lands aredeveloped by spending huge amount it is not open to the Governmentto initiate acquisition proceedings which is violative of Articles19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India; that theproceedings are violative of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005(Central Act 28 of 2005) and the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones(Special Provisions) Act, 2005; and that the administrativesanction issued by the Industries Department has not disclosed thatthe petitioner's land has been notified as Special Economic Zone,apart from other grounds.7.1. W.P.No.17851 of 2009 relates to the notification issuedunder Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in respect of lands comprisedin 19/2A1, 19/2A2, 19/2B1, 19/2B2, 20/5B, 23/1, 23/2, 23/4,23/6, 23/7A, 23/7B, 23/7C, 24/1, 24/2, 25/8, 25/9, 25/10,25/12, 25/13, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/3A, 26/3B, 26/3C, 27/2,27/3, 28/7, 28/9A and 28/9C situated at Pillaipakkam villageSriperumbudur Taluk and the challenge inter alia is on the samegrounds as raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.17850 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.2. Similar to that is the case of the petitioner inW.P.No.17852 of 2009 which relates to the notification underSection 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.91, Industries(SIPCOT-LA), dated 3.4.2008 in respect of Survey Nos. 46/A2, 46/A3,46A/4A, 46/A4B, 46A/5, 46A/6, 54A/1A, 54A/1B, 54A/1C,54A/2A, 54A/2B, 54A/3A, 54A/3B, 54A/3C, 54A/3D, and 54A/3Esituated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.7.3. The petitioners in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 are husband andwife. They challenge the notice issued under Section 3(2) of theAct in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 25/2A, 25/3,25/4, 25/5, 26/6, 25/7, 27/1, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/5, 28/6A,28/6C, 28/8A, 28/8B, 43/1, 43/2A to an extent of 29.30 Acressituated at Pillipakkam Village on the ground that the lands areagricultural lands used for cultivation and therefore, theacquisition is contrary to the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 andthe Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act,2005 and that the District Collector, Kancheepuram has nojurisdiction, apart from many other grounds.8.1. W.P.Nos.9348 and 9349 of 2008 challenge G.O.Ms.No.50,Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10.3.2008, notification issued underSection 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and the consequential Form-E noticeissued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) dated 20.3.2008directing the petitioners to surrender possession.8.2. While W.P.No.9348 of 2008 relates to plot of an extent of222 sq.mtrs. comprised in Survey No.34/23, W.P.No.9349 of 2008relates to a plot of an extent of 164 sq.mtrs. comprised in SurveyNo.34/29. The challenge is on the grounds that no opportunity wasgiven pursuant to the objections raised by the petitioners andtherefore, there is a violation of the procedure contemplated underAct 10 of 1999, apart from the violation of principles of naturaljustice and no enquiry was conducted, no personal hearing was givenand that the industrial purpose relates to the industry to bestarted by the Government and not by private individuals and thatthe house sites have been approved by the authority under the Townand Country Planning Act and therefore, the proceedings are withoutjurisdiction.9.1. W.P.No.12611 of 2008 also challenges the notificationissued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.48,Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 10.3.2008 and theconsequential Form-E notice dated 20.3.2008 relating to an extentof 10962 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4,253/5, 253/9A, 253/1B, 253/1C, 253/3, 253/8C of Vengadu Village,Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.2. W.P.Nos.13250, 13253, 13299 and 13302 of 2008 challengethe notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 inG.O.Ms.No.64, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 14.3.2008and the consequential notice issued in Form-E relating to 15.70Cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.257/7E, 257/9C (as per Form-Enotice S.No.257/1); 13.50 Cents of land comprised in SurveyNos.257/7F, 257/G1, 257/7G2, 257/7G3 and 257/9D (As per Form-Enotice S.No.257/9D); 1.18 Acres of land comprised in SurveyNos.257/7C, 251/3A, 257/7D3, 257/7D5, 257/7D6, 257/7D7 (As perForm-E notice S.No.257/1); and extent of 33.97 Cents of landcomprised in Survey Nos.257/7B, 257/7E, 257/9B, 257/9C (As perForm-E notice S.No.257/1) respectively of Vengadu Village,Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District on the same grounds.9.3. Like W.P.No.12611 of 2008, W.P.Nos.13251, 13252, 13254,13300, 13301, 13303, 13304, 13041 to 13043 and 16942 of 2008, alsochallenge the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of1999 in G.O.Ms.No.48, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated10.3.2008 and the consequential Form-E notice dated 20.3.2008relating to an extent of 11047 sq.ft. comprised in S.Nos.253/1D,253/1E, 253/6, 253/7, 253/9B, 253/9C (as per Form-E noticeS.No.253/1B1F); an extent of 11712 sq.ft. comprised inS.Nos.253/1E, 253/7, 253/9B, 253/9D, 253/9E (as per Form-E noticeS.No.253/1B1E); an extent of 9063 sq.ft. comprised in S.Nos.253/1D,253/1E, 253/5, 253/6, 253/9A, 253/9B, 253/9C (As per Form-E noticeS.No.253/1B5); an extent of 22.99 Cents and 23.58 Cents comprisedin Survey Nos.251/3A, 257/7D6, 257/7D7, 251/3A (As per Form-Enotice S.No.251/3A); an extent of 10225 sq.ft. comprised in SurveyNos.251/2A, 251/2B5, 251/2B6 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/2A4);an extent of 9711 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/10B (As perForm-E notice S.No.253/1B1H); an extent of 10225 sq.ft. comprisedin Survey Nos.251/2A, 251/2B4, 251/2B5 (As per Form-E noticeS.No.251/2A3); an extent of 10574 sq.ft. comprised in SurveyNo.251/2B6 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/2A1C); an extent of10792 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5,253/9A (As per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B4); an extent of 10742sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/3, 253/4, 253/8C, 253/9A(As per patta 253/1B1C); and an extent of 14179 sq.ft. comprised inSurvey Nos.251/3A, 251/3B and 253/3B2 (As per Form-E noticeS.No.251/3A) respectively, of Vengadu Village, SriperumbudurTaluk, Kancheepuram District. 10.1. W.P.Nos.12677 to 12682 of 2008 relate to thenotification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and theconsequential Form-E notice in respect of the vacant plots of thepetitioners in Plot No.103, comprised in Survey No.90/5A as perregistered sale deed and S.No.90/28 as per the notification to anextent of 2400 sq.ft.; Plot No.20, comprised in Survey Nos.90/2A, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 90/3 and 90/6A as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/8 as per thenotification to an extent of 2387 sq.ft.; Plot No.51, comprised inSurvey Nos.90/2B and 90/4 as per registered sale deed andS.No.90/16 as per the notification to an extent of 2387 sq.ft.;Plot No.74, comprised in Survey No.90/5B2 as per registered saledeed and S.No.90/53 as per the notification to an extent of2400sq.ft.; Plot No.65, comprised in Survey Nos.90/5B2, 90/5B3 asper registered sale deed and S.No.90/54 as per the notification toan extent of 3000 sq.ft.; Plot No.38, comprised in Survey Nos.90/6Band 93/1B (New SF.No.90/24B and 93/37) as per registered sale deedand S.No.90/24 as per the notification to an extent of 1200 sq.ft.;and Plot No.38, comprised in Survey Nos.90/6B and 93/1B (NewSF.No.90/24B and 93/37) as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/24as per the notification to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. respectively,all situated in Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District.10.2. W.P.No.21335 of 2008 relates to the notification issuedunder Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 relating to Plot No.53,comprised in Survey No.90/4 as per the registered sale deed dated9.2.2007 and S.No.90/66 as per the notification to an extent of1800 sq.ft., and W.P.No.20442 of 2008 relates Plot No.7, comprisedin Survey Nos.90/1 and 90/6A as per the registered sale deed dated26.2.2007 and S.No.90/68 as per the notification to an extent of2800 sq.ft. situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbur Taluk.11. W.P.No.18461 of 2008 challenges the Form 'A' issued bythe District Collector under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 callingfor objections relating to Survey No.33/2 and 33/7 to an extent of2280 sq.ft. in Thirumoolar Nagar Eastern Extension Part-I, situatedat No.158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk withoutfinally adjudicating the claims of the petitioner pending beforethe Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) on the same grounds raisedin the other writ petitions.12. W.P.Nos.20431 to 20433 of 2008 also relate to thenotifications issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 inrespect of the vacant plot in Dry S.F.Nos.39-2A1 – 0.16.5 Hectares,39-2B – 0.11.5 Hectares, 40-2A – 1850 sq.mtrs., 40-2B – 1950sq.mtrs. in G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries (SIPCOT LA), dated 3.4.2008and S.F.No.48-2C – 0.34.5 Hectares in G.O.Ms.No.91, Industries(SIPCOT LA), dated 3.4.2008; vacant plot in S.F.No.39-2A2A – 0.64.0Hectares; and vacant plot in S.F.No.39-2A2B – 0.11.5 Hectaresrespectively all situated in Pillaipakkam Village, SriperumbudurTaluk.13. W.P.No.13549 of 2009 relates to the notification issuedunder Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 dated 10.3.2008 and the noticedated 23.7.2008 issued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relating to Survey Nos.73/A-3 and 78/1B at Pillaipakkam Village,Sriperumburu Taluk on the ground that the petitioner is carrying onAluminium manufacture and the said objection has not beenconsidered, apart from other grounds raised by the other writpetitioners.14.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram, it is stated that the Government, at theinstance of SIPCOT, in order to capitalise on the booming economyand the interest shown by the industrialists and finding that thereis no bulk space available in the existing industrial complex ofSIPCOT accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.138,Industries Department, dated 3.11.2006 to acquire private landsunder Act 10 of 1999 in the following villages to the extent statedhereunder:S.No.Name of VillagePatta LandsTotalWetDryIn Hectares1Pillaipakkam10.35.5165.56.0175.91.52Vengadu29.52.066.81.096.33.03Navalur-9.29.09.29.04Irumbedu-67.97.567.97.5Total39.87.5309.63.5349.51.014.2. It is stated that for the purpose of convenience theacquisition was split up into various blocks consisting of fiveunits each, with a Special Tahsildar. Under Act 10 of 1999, theDistrict Collector is empowered to approve and issue public noticeand also show cause notice to the land owners and other interestedpersons under Section 3(2) and accordingly, public notices wereissued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram and were publishedin English and Tamil newspapers, apart from publication at VillageAdministrative Officer's Office, Vengadu, Block DevelopmentOfficer's Office, Sriperumbudur, Sub Registrar's Office,Sriperumbudur, Collector's Office, Kencheepuram, Revenue DivisionalOfficer's Office, Kancheepuram on various dates in the year 2007.14.3. Besides public notices, it is stated that individualshow cause notices were approved by the District Collector to landowners and interested persons directing to submit objections within https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thirty days and accordingly, notices under Section 3(2) of Act 10of 1999 were sent to the petitioners. According to the respondents,they have issued notices under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 inForm-A and Form-B to the petitioners; local publication/tom tomwere effected; objections have been received from the petitioners,except in few cases where objections have not been filed; enquirywas conducted and notice under Section 4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 wasissued directing the petitioners to hand over possession which isissued in Form-F in all the cases, except W.P.Nos.30221 and 30570of 2007 and 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and it is stated that possessionhas not been handed over in respect of the said cases. The detailsfurnished are as under:S.No.W.P.No.3(2) FormAForm BLast DateofPublication/ TomTomObjectionsreceivedDate ofEnquiry/WhetherparticipatedDate of4(2)notice 110918/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200721.4.200821.11.2007/No3.4.2008226183/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.2007Notreceived21.11.2007/No3.4.2008326436/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.2007Notreceived21.11.2007/No3.4.2008417850/200910.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,4.10.200710.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,3.10.20078.8.2007,25.10.2007,6.8.2007and25.10.20078.9.200710.9.2007,24.9.2007,31.12.2007 and11.1.2008/ YesNotissued517851/200910.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,4.10.200710.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,3.10.20078.8.2007,25.10.2007, 6.8.2007and25.10.20078.9.200710.9.2007,24.9.2007,31.12.2007and11.1.2008/YesNotissued617852/200910.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,4.10.200710.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,3.10.20078.8.2007,25.10.2007, 6.8.2007and25.10.20078.9.200710.9.2007,24.9.2007,31.12.2007and11.1.2008/YesNotissued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.3(2) FormAForm BLast DateofPublication/ TomTomObjectionsreceivedDate ofEnquiry/WhetherparticipatedDate of4(2)notice 730570/200710.7.200710.7.20078.8.2007/6.8.200711.9.200724.9.2007and10.1.2008/YesNotissued830221/200710.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,4.10.200710.7.2007,6.7.2007,10.7.2007,3.10.20078.8.2007,25.10.2007, 6.8.2007and25.10.20078.9.200710.9.2007,24.9.2007,31.12.2007and11.1.2008/YesNotissued99348/20084.7.20074.7.200718.7.2007/16.7.200720.8.200722.8.2007/No20.3.2008109349/20084.7.20074.7.200718.7.2007/16.7.200720.8.200722.8.2007/No20.3.20081112611/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/Yes20.3.20081213250/200824.8.200724.8.20078.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/Yes3.4.20081313251/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/ No20.3.20081413252/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/ No20.3.20081513253/200824.8.200724.8.20078.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/Yes3.4.20081613254/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/ No20.3.20081713299/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/ No20.3.2008 and3.4.20081813300/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/ No20.3.2008 and3.4.20081913301/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/ Yes20.3.20082013302/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20074.10.200719.10.2007/ Yes20.3.20082113303/200824.8.200724.8.20078.9.2007/7.9.20079.10.200719.10.2007/Yes3.4.20082213304/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/ Yes20.3.20082313041/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20078.10.200719.10.2007/No20.3.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.3(2) FormAForm BLast DateofPublication/ TomTomObjectionsreceivedDate ofEnquiry/WhetherparticipatedDate of4(2)notice 2413042/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/ Yes20.3.20082513043/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20075.10.200719.10.2007/No20.3.20082616942/200824.8.200724.8.200713.9.2007/7.9.20073.10.200719.10.2007/No20.3.20082720442/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.2007Not filed21.11.2007/No3.4.20082821335/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.2007Not filed21.11.2007/No3.4.20082912677/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200712.11.200721.11.2007/Yes3.4.20083012678/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200712.11.200721.11.2007/Yes3.4.20083112679/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200714.11.200721.11.2007/Yes3.4.20083212680/20084.10.20074.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200712.11.200721.11.2007/Yes3.4.20083312681/20083.10.20073.10.200715.10.2007/15.10.200713.11.200721.11.2007/Yes3.4.20083412682/20083.10.2007and8.10.20073.10.2007and8.10.200715.10.2007&23.10.2007/15.10.2007Not filed21.11.2007&28.11.2007/No3.4.20083512683/20083.10.2007and8.10.20073.10.2007and8.10.200715.10.2007&23.10.2007/15.10.2007Not filed21.11.2007&28.11.2007/No3.4.20083618461/20084.7.20074.7.200718.7.2007/16.7.20075.10.200722.8.2007/No20.3.20083720431/200810.7.2007and6.7.200710.7.2007and6.7.20076.8.2007/8.8.20077.9.200710.9.2007and24.9.2007/No18.4.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.3(2) FormAForm BLast DateofPublication/ TomTomObjectionsreceivedDate ofEnquiry/WhetherparticipatedDate of4(2)notice 3820432/200810.7.200710.7.20078.8.2007/6.8.20077.9.200710.9.2007and24.9.2007/No18.4.20083920433/200810.7.200710.7.20078.8.2007/6.8.20077.9.200710.9.2007and24.9.2007/No18.4.20084013549/2009------14.4. It is stated that most of the plots are vacant and mostof the objections are that the said lands were purchased by way ofinvestment and requested compensation at the rate of Rs.1 Lakh percent. Since the area was required for industrial development, theobjections were overruled and in the enquiry conducted by theDistrict Collector, the owners and representatives were heard andthe proposal was forwarded to the Government along with theobjections filed to enable the Government to take a decision underSection 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and thereafter, the Government afterconsidering the cause has approved the notice under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999 and the same was published in the government gazetteand after publication of notification, the notified lands vest withthe Government and only physical possession has to be taken. It isstated that the procedure enumerated under Act 10 of 1999 has beenfollowed.14.5. It is stated that the petitioners and otherrepresentatives have attended the personal enquiry held by theDistrict Collector and objections raised by the land owners wereheard and thereafter, the District Collector has forwarded theproposal to the Government for taking appropriate action in whichthere is no arbitrariness. It is also stated that the Governmentis taking all steps to protect the environment, greenery, etc. Itis also denied that many trees are available in the said lands. Itis stated that most of the petitioners have purchased the landsonly recently after the administrative sanction was issued. It isdenied that there is any colourable exercise of powers in theacquisition proceedings under Act 10 of 1999. The purpose ofacquisition is expansion of the existing industrial complex ofSIPCOT at Irungattukottai with an intention to develop speedyindustrial growth and the same can be done by the Government aswell as private entrepreneurs. The Government has delegated thepowers to District Collector except those powers which are excludedunder Section 23A of Act 10 of 1999 and in exercise of the powers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the District Collector has heard objections and after hearing theobjections, he has sent his proposals for a decision by theGovernment under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and therefore,according to the respondents, there is no arbitrariness and theprocedure contemplated under the Act 10 of 1999 has been followedin full.15.1. The main contention raised on behalf of most of thepetitioners, as submitted by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned SeniorCounsel, is that the acquisition proceedings are colourableexercise of the powers and against the provisions of Sections 3 and4 of Act 10 of 1999. While it may be true that except the powersconferred under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 the other powersunder Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 are delegated to theDistrict Collector, there must be materials to show that theDistrict Collector has in fact considered the objections from theowners or other persons interested in such lands and suchconsideration shall be possible only if the District Collector hasin fact conducted an enquiry and according to him, since there wasno enquiry conducted on the individual owners and the personsinterested in the lands, it is not possible for the DistrictCollector to consider the cause shown by the owners or the personsinterested so as to enable the Government to pass orders underSection 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. He would correlate the provisionsof Act 10 of 1999 with that of the National Highways Act. 15.2. It is his submission that in the counter affidavit ofthe District Collector it is stated that the District Collector hasconsidered the objections raised by the land owners in the enquiryon 19.10.2007 and thereafter, the Government has passed orders andtherefore, the order passed by the Government under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999 should be taken as one passed without application ofmind. It is also his case that it has been the objection of theowners as well as the persons interested that the lands are usedfor agricultural purpose and the authorities have failed toconsider the public interest in preserving natural greenery. 15.3. That apart, it is his submission that the acquisition iscontrary to the terms "industrial estate" under Section 2(d) and"industrial purpose" under Section 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999. It ishis further case that the petitioners have not been served with thereport of the enquiry conducted and the acquisition would result infelling of thousands of trees and therefore, it should have beenexempted from the acquisition proceedings in the interest ofpreserving nature, since that is also a public purpose. It is hiscase that insofar as it relates to W.P.No.12611 of 2008, the writpetitioner therein has grown mango grove in the vast area of 27acres. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.4. It is his contention that when the powers are delegatedto the District Collector, which includes "considering the cause"under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, necessarily the DistrictCollector has to pass orders under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999and that can be possible only after hearing the objections. It isalso his contention that once the District Collector passes orderunder Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 the Government cannot goagainst the same. It is his case that passing of such order underSection 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is mandatory, or else at least itmust be shown in the file that the District Collector hasconsidered the objections and forwarded the same to the Government.16. It is also the contention of the other counsel, especiallyMr.N.Damodaran, who appears in some of the writ petitions, viz.,W.P.Nos.12677 to 12682, 20442 and 21335 of 2008 that detailedobjections have been filed by the petitioners therein who havepurchased the lands comprised in various survey numbers in plotsfor the purpose of residential occupation as it is shown in thesketch submitted by him and that the objections have not beenconsidered.17. Mr.J.Saravana Vel, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in W.P.Nos.9348 and 9349 of 2008 would submit thatwhile in the paper publications dated 18.7.2007 the date of enquiryhas been mentioned as 22.8.2007 fixed by the District Collector,the Form-A notice under Section 3(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2007signed by the authority on 18.7.2007 was received by thepetitioners only on 27.7.2007 and even though the petitioners havesent their objections dated 16.8.2007 by speed post to respondents2 and 3 therein on 17.8.2007, which was received by the thirdrespondent therein on 20.8.2007, viz., before the issuance ofnotifications under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999, which was on10.3.2008, the respondents have not taken note of the objections. 18.1. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel for the petitionersin W.P.Nos.26183, 26436 of 2008, 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and 30221and 30570 of 2007 would submit that the petitioners have purchased48 Acres of land with an intention to set up an industrial park andhe would submit that when the petitioners intend to utilise thesaid lands for industrial purpose, the impugned acquisitionproceedings to give the said lands to some other entrepreneurs canonly be a misnomer and is opposed to the basic tenet of Act 10 of1999 itself.18.2. He would further submit that when the petitionersthemselves intend to use the land for industrial purpose, unlessthe Government wants to use it for industrial purpose theacquisition would become bad and in this regard he would rely uponthe decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001] 7 SCC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

545. To substantiate his contention that the objections ought tobe considered and the forming of opinion by the authorities shouldbe in the form of record, he would rely upon the decision inBhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat andanother, [2008] 4 SCC 144.18.3. It is his contention that in any event the petitionershave made representations for allotment of alternative sites inMathur Village for carrying on industrial activities.19.1. On the other hand, while producing the entire originalrecords relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of thesematters, it is the contention of the learned Advocate General thatthe administrative sanction was issued for the purpose of thescheme in G.O.Ms.No.138, Industries Department, dated 3.11.2006.By virtue of the said Government Order, the Government whileaccording administrative sanction for acquisition of 39.87.5Hectares of wet lands, 309.63.5 Hectares of dry lands and 104.85.0Hectares of poramboke lands, has decided to use 454.36.0 Hectaresof land as per the following details:S.No.Name ofVillagePatta LandsPorambokelandsTotalWetDry1Navalur-9.29.0-9.29.02Pillaipakkam10.35.5165.56.045.49.0221.40.53Vengadu29.52.066.81.038.69.0135.02.04Irumbedu-67.97.520.67.088.64.5Total39.87.5309.63.5104.85.0454.36.019.2. It is his contention that as per Section 23-A of Act 10of 1999, the Government has delegated powers to the DistrictCollector, except the power to pass orders under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999 to withdraw the acquisition and to frame Rules andin fact the District Collector based on the delegated power hasconducted enquiry in which the petitioners have participated,especially the petitioners in W.P.No.30221 of 2007 where theenquiry was conducted on 10.9.2007. It is his submission that inrespect of the enquiry whether it is improper or not, the same hasbeen decided in the earlier judgment relating to acquisition underthe same Act, viz., Act 10 of 1999 in Oragadam Village, inM.Haridass and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by itsSecretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai andothers, [2008] 5 MLJ 1174. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.3. It is his submission that under Section 3(3) of Act 10of 1999, the term "considering the cause" cannot be termed aspassing a formal order as it may be required under Section 5A ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for want of such formal orderthe acquisition proceedings cannot be vitiated. Therefore,according to him, the term "considering the cause" does not mean topass an order, since it is ultimately the Government by issuingnotification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 passes the order.He would rely upon the decision in M.Haridass and others v. Stateof Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, IndustriesDepartment, Chennai and others, referred supra, to support hiscontention.19.4. It is his submission that even if the District Collectoron enquiry gives a negative recommendation, still the Governmentwould have power under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 to issuenotice of acquisition. It is his submission as per the recordsproduced before this Court that there is substantial compliance ofthe procedure contemplated and reading anything more would meanfollowing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is notcontemplated.19.5. He would defend the acquisition proceedings based on thejudgment of the Full Bench of this Court in R.Pari v. The SpecialTahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC 609,since the Act under which the acquisition is sought to be done is awelfare measure. It is his submission that the District Collectorhas issued notice and heard the objections and there is noprejudice.19.6. It is his submission that the terms used in Section 2(d)and 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999 have already been dealt with in thejudgment referred to above and there is no duty contemplated on thepart of the District Collector to provide a copy of the reportunder the provisions of Act 10 of 1999. 19.7. It is his further submission that the acquisition cannotbe said to be against the ecological balance inasmuch as the largerpublic interest is to be considered and certain areas are requiredto be left open to sky for vegetation to preserve ecology. It isalso stated that there is no question of felling of 4000 trees andmost part of the lands are barren lands and they were all purchasedrecently after the administrative sanction was granted on3.11.2006. 20. I have considered the elaborate submissions made by therespective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Advocate General, perused the records including theoriginal files produced in respect of each of these cases and given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ my anxious thought to the issues involved in these batch of cases.21. Broadly speaking, as submitted by the learned AdvocateGeneral, the writ petitions can be categorized into two sets, oneset of writ petitions challenging the proceedings under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and other set of writ petitions which arefiled later challenging the final notifications issued by theGovernment under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 22. The validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands forIndustrial Purposes Act, 1997, which has come into effect from31.9.2001, was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court inK.Ramakrishnan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by itsSecretary to Industries Department, [2007] 8 MLJ 1. 23.1. When the earlier batch of writ petitions were filedunder similar circumstances challenging the action initiated by theGovernment for acquisition by passing orders under Act 10 of 1999for expansion of Oragadam Industrial Complex by SIPCOT, I had anoccasion to consider the issue in detail in M.Haridass and othersv. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government,Industries Department, Chennai and others, [2008] 5 MLJ 1174.Having considered the substantial issues raised in those writpetitions, I held that the principles contemplated which areapplicable to the Central Act 1 of 1894 cannot be applied to Act 10of 1999 and found on the facts and circumstances of those cases andon the totality of the situation that there has been a substantialcompliance of service of notice and conduct of hearing and takinginto consideration the larger interest of the State based on theobject of Act 10 of 1999 dismissed the writ petitions.23.2. While referring to the terms "industrial area" underSection 2(c), "industrial estate" under Section 2(d) and"industrial purpose" under Section 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999, I haveheld in paragraph 54 of the said judgment as follows:"54. On the face of definition clause, it is clearthat for the purpose of starting new industries orexpansion of existing industries it is not necessaryfor the Government to declare or to build factories byitself."23.3. Again, while construing the term "hearing" contemplatedunder Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, it was held in that batch ofcases that the term "hearing" cannot be equated to that of anenquiry provided under the Central Act 1 of 1894 and passing ordersafter hearing and considering objections. Referring to Rule 6 ofRules framed by the State Government under Act 10 of 1999 relatingto hearing of objections, which is as follows:"Rule 6 : Hearing of objections by the Government - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) If a statement of objections is filed by a personwho is not interested in the Land, it shall bysummarily rejected.(b) If any objection are received from a personinterested in the land, within the time prescribed inrule 3 or 4, the Government shall fix a date forhearing the objections and give notice thereof to theobjector or as well as to the department or companyrequiring the land. Copies of the objections shallalso be forwarded to such department or company. TheDepartment or company may file on or before the datefixed by the Government, a statement by way of answerto the objections and may also depute a representativeto attend the enquiry.(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date towhich the enquiry may be adjourned by the Government,the Government shall hear the objector, or a personauthorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader andthe representative, if any, of the department orcompany and record any evidence that may be producedby both in support of the objections and in support ofthe need for acquiring the land."the ambit of the said Rule was explained on comparison with theCentral Act 1 of 1894 as follows:"But the said Rule 6 framed under Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 has to be construed only in the context ofTamil Nadu Act 10/1999 taking into consideration thebasic Object of the Act and it cannot be construedbased on the object of the Central Act 1/1894.Therefore, the hearing of objections by owners orpersons interested under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 isto give opportunity to the owners and not forconducting an elaborate enquiry which certainly wouldnot enable the Government for speedy acquisition ofland for industrial purposes. Nevertheless, followingof the basic principles of natural justice is to beread as forming part of any statute, of course,including Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 which can never bedispensed with but the nature of hearing contemplatedunder Act 10/1999 is different from the nature ofenquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the CentralAct 1/1894 and the Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Rulesframed thereunder. Again a reference to Section 5-A(2)of the Central Act 1/1894 specifically mandates theDistrict Collector to give the objectors anopportunity of being heard, while such stringentprovisions is not available under Tamil Nadu Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10/1999, even though the Rules framed under the saidAct especially Rule 6, in pari materia is same as thatof Rule 4 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government underCentral Act 1/1894."23.4. In the said batch cases, after considering thecontention raised by the learned counsel for the petitionersregarding the forwarding of objections of land owners to therequisitioning authority and obtaining answers to the objections,it was held that there is no provision under the Act or Rulesmandating the Government to forward such answers to the objectionsbefore the date of hearing. Similarly, when the Collector ondelegated power has heard and considered the cause as per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 by referring to the objections raised by theowners or the persons interested, in the absence of any provisionunder the Act or Rules made thereunder to submit a copy of suchreport to the owners or persons interested, it is not possible toaccept the contention of the learned counsel that for nonproduction of such report of enquiry, the acquisition proceedingsare vitiated.23.5. The Government, after realising the difficulties inpublishing the notice and calling for the owners and personsinterested to show cause and with an intention to entrust the sameto a separate officer, has introduced Section 23-A of Act 10 of1999, which is as follows, by the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Landfor Industrial Purposes (Amendment) Act, 2005:"Section 23-A. Delegation of powers - The Governmentmay, by notification, direct that all the powers underthis Act except the powers, -(1) to issue notice under Sub-section (1) of Section3;(2) to withdraw the land from acquisition under thefirst proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4; and(3) to make rules under Section 25,shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may bespecified in the notification, be exercised by theCollector."Therefore, after the said amendment, except under the threecircumstances stated therein, all other powers can be delegated tothe officers and it is not in dispute on the facts andcircumstances of the present case that the District Collector hasbeen delegated with such powers by the Government and in fact byG.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI (1)), dated 2.9.2005 such delegationhas been effected, which is as follows:"REVENUE DEPARTMENT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DELEGATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TODISTRICT COLLECTORS UNDER THE TAMIL NADUACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSESACT, 1997[G.O.Ms. No. 513, Revenue (LAI (1), 2nd September2005.]No. II (2) / REV / 716 (d) 2005 - In exercise of thepowers conferred by Section 23-A of the Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997(Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999), the Governor of TamilNadu hereby directs that all the powers exercisable bythe Government under said Act except the powersexcluded in the said Section 23-A shall be exercisedby the Collector of the district concerned.(2) The notification hereby issued shall come intoforce on the 2nd of September, 2005.[Published in Part II - Section 2 of the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 2ndSeptember 2005, Issue No. 199)."Hence, after such delegation, the issuance of public notice,calling for objections by way of show cause notice as contemplatedunder Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and performing the functionsas per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 are with the DistrictCollector, who has in fact performed the said functions about whichthere is no dispute and that is also borne out by records.23.6. As in the batch cases in which the above judgment wasdelivered, it is found that in all these cases also notices ofhearing have been fixed by the District Collector and Form-A andForm-B have been served and for the enquiry fixed on the datestipulated the petitioners have appeared and objections werereceived. But the case of the petitioners is that their objectionshave not been either considered or taken note of by the DistrictCollector since the enquiry was only a make belief drama as largenumber of persons were called on a day and there is absolutely nopossibility for the District Collector to consider the cause bygiving a proper hearing. Under similar circumstances, in the abovereported case I have held as follows after referring to theoriginal files therein:"81. It was considering the said response, theDistrict Collector has requested the Government toissue notification under Section 3(1) of the TamilNadu Act 10/1999. On the date of hearing, it is seenthat the District Collector has considered the written https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ objections given by the petitioners and others whohave participated in the enquiry and also thedeclaration submitted by various owners for privatenegotiation accepting to deliver or surrenderpossession on receipt of compensation fixed by theGovernment."24.1. One another question that has to be decided in thesebatch of cases is as to whether under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of1999, by virtue of delegated powers, the District Collector who hasconducted hearing and considered the cause should pass orders andwhether on passing such orders the same have to be communicated tothe owners or persons interested.24.2. A reading of the said Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999makes it very clear that passing of the order which is final isonly with the Government under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 andtherefore, the term "pass an order" relates to the power of theGovernment in passing orders under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999and is not relating to the authority who hears and considers thecause on delegation of powers from the Government. Therefore, thecontention that the District Collector being an authority delegatedcertain powers by the Government to hear and consider the causeshould pass orders under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is amisnomer and is not in consonance with the actual provisions ofSection 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999. 24.3. What is contemplated under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of1999 is that the District Collector on the delegated powers has tohear and consider the cause shown by the owners or the personsinterested and there must be material available on record to showthat the Collector has in fact heard and considered such objectionsand if such material is available, nothing more is required, forafter such hearing and consideration by the Collector, the papersare sent to the Government for passing ultimate orders underSection 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999.24.4. In the absence of any provision imposing an obligationon the part of the District Collector being the delegated authorityor the Government for that matter to send the copies of the reportof the enquiry to the owners or persons interested and consideringthe same in consonance with the basic object of Act 10 of 1999, itis not possible to accept the contention that either the enquiryreport or order passed by the District Collector is to becommunicated to the parties concerned. After the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Collector hears and considers the cause on delegated powers fromthe Government and reports to the Government under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999, it is the Government which has to make its opinionthat the land is required for any industrial purpose to pass finalorders by way of notification. 24.5. Section 3 of Act 10 of 1999 is as follows:"Section 3. Power to acquire land:- (1) If, at anytime, in the opinion of the Government, any land isrequired for any industrial purposes, or for any otherpurpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act,they may acquire such land by publishing in the TamilNadu Government Gazette a notice specifying theparticular purpose for which such land is required.(2) Before publishing a notice under Sub-section (1),the Government shall, call upon the owner and anyother person, who in the opinion of the Government maybe interested in such land, to show cause within suchtime as may be specified in the notice, why the landshould not be acquired. The Government shall alsocause a public notice to be given in such manner asmay be prescribed.(3) The Government may pass an order under Sub-section(1) after hearing and considering the cause, if any,shown by the owner or person interested."24.6. A reading of Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999, gives ascope to the Government even to reject the papers submitted by theCollector after hearing and considering the cause as per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 recommending that no acquisition should bedone, thereby taking a different opinion in spite of such proposalof the District Collector. Of course, only in those circumstancesit has to be examined as to whether the Government while takingdifferent stand shall hear the parties again which does not arisein the present cases. Therefore, what is required is anopportunity to be heard and consideration of the cause as expressedby the owners or persons interested in respect of the land soughtto be acquired under Act 10 of 1999 and that is the minimumrequirement of natural justice as per the scope and ambit of thespecialized Act 10 of 1999, as it was held in the said batch ofcases that it is a substantial compliance of the requirements ofAct 10 of 1999 that would suffice to hold the acquisition as valid.The said decision applies here also in respect of the nature ofhearing and consideration of cause by the District Collector as itis seen in the files produced by the learned Advocate General. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.1. A reference to the original files relating toPillaipakkam Village comprised in Unit I, Block VI to the extent of10.32.0 Hectares stated to be little more or less shows that Form-Aand Form-B notice and publications were effected and objectionswere received from the petitioners except in respect of few of themand statements were obtained on the date of enquiry, viz.,21.11.2007 and before that based on the objections the SIPCOT hassubmitted its opinion on 20.11.2007 categorizing the nature ofobjections and on considering the objections which are mainlyrelating to the conversion of lands into house sites decades agoand that the idea of the objectors was to use it for housing sites,the District Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.122/2007, dated9.12.2007 addressed to the Secretary to Government has, in factafter taking note of the objections, opined as follows:".. Even though the lands have been converted as housesites a decade ago, there is little development andthe purchase of plot is only as a means of investment.As the lands are acquired for a public purpose, theobjection raised may be overruled and the acquisitionmay be proceeded with the publication of notice u/s. 3(1) of the Act."25.2. That apart, in the said detailed proposal, the DistrictCollector has also arrived at the valuation and sent his proposalto the Government recommending a notification under Section 3(1) ofAct 10 of 1999 enclosing the following documents, viz.,"1Land plan schedule2Block wise sketch and sketch showing the acquisitionof land3Copy of the Administrative Sanction G.O.4Publication of 3(2) Notice Form 'A' and 'B' withschedule5Sub-Division records6The village accounts7Objection petitions statement8Enquiry records9Inspection report10Data land documents11Guideline value for acquisition and data lands12Village Administrative Office statement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13Topo Sketch14Sketch showing data land and acquisition of lands153(1) notification16Certificate received from Assistant Commissioner(Land Reforms)"25.3. The above said files covered the lands which are subjectmatter of W.P.Nos.10918, 12677 to 12683, 20442 and 21335 of 2008.25.4. Likewise, in respect of another extent of 9.09.5Hectares in Survey No.33/1A, etc., in Unit I, Block-I, PillaipakkamVillage, the subject matter of W.P.Nos.9348, 9349 and 18461 of2008, apart from two other writ petitions, W.P.Nos.9780 and 13278of 2008 which are not forming part of this batch cases, theDistrict Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.79 of 2007, dated31.12.2007 addressed to the Secretary to the Government has givensimilar proposal after considering the objections and afterreferring to the remarks of the requisitioning body, namely SIPCOT,major objections having been regarding the claim of bettercompensation and others relating to the construction of house,since the lands were converted as house sites decades ago.25.5. In respect of the acquisition in Pillaipakkam Village inBlock No.III, Unit-II covered in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 also theDistrict Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.81 of 2007, dated13.9.2008 having noticed about the publication of Form-A and Form-Bnotices in the Business Standard (English Daily) and Daily Thanthi(Tamil Daily) on 3.8.2007 considered the objection of the owner inthe enquiry conducted under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and hastaken note of the remark by the requisitioning body, namely theSIPCOT stating that the petitioner in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 has notappeared but his counsel has attended enquiry, and sent theproposal to the Government to issue notification under Section 3(1)of Act 10 of 1999.25.6. Similarly, in respect of the other writ petitionsrelating to M.K.Multivision, etc., viz., W.P.Nos.30221 of 2007 and17850 to 17852 of 2009 also the District Collector has taken noteof the objections and has stated that the lands of the Company arelying vacant in the middle of the scheme area and are essentiallyrequired for public purpose and has given proposal for notificationunder Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 after disposal of the writpetitions since there is an interim order passed by this Court asseen in the proceedings of the District Collector dated 24.1.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In respect of W.P.No.30221 of 2007, the District Collector inR.C.No.66 of 2007, dated 24.1.2008 has considered the objectionsand forwarded his proposal.25.7. A perusal of the other original files in respect of allwrit petitions relating to all the four villages, viz., Vengadu,Navalur, and Irumbedu, including the remaining extent of lands inPillaipakkam Village also show that the District Collector has infact by considering the objections sent his proposal to theGovernment for issuing notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of1999.25.8. It is therefore clear that apart from the fact that theentire procedural requirements regarding the issue of notice, etc.have been complied with, the District Collector who has beendelegated powers by the Government has in fact heard and consideredthe cause in the enquiry under Section 3 of Act 10 of 1999 and senthis proposal to the Government and I am not able to see anysubstantial irregularity or illegality in the entire process toenable this court to interfere with the acquisition proceedingsunder Act 10 of 1999.26.1. The reliance placed on by Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26183, 26436 of2008, 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and 30221 and 30570 of 2007, who arestated to have purchased the lands for the purpose of putting up anindustry, on the decision of the Apex Court in Sube Singh v.State of Haryana, [2001] 7 SCC 545 has no application to thefacts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, theApex Court was dealing with the Central Act 1 of 1894 and thenature of the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of theCentral Act 1 of 1894. The present Act 10 of 1999 is distinct inits purport and aim. In addition to that, the Apex Court wasdealing with a situation where the State Government has acceptedthe request of some of the land owners for exclusion of theirproperties on the ground of developed residential colony, whereason the facts and circumstances of the present case it is seen thatthe lands are barren lands.26.2. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel has also relied uponanother judgment of the Apex Court in Bhikhubhai VithlabhaiPatel and Others v. State of Gujarat and another, [2008] 4 SCC144. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with the developmentplan under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act,1976. While construing the term "reason to believe" in the place https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of "is of opinion" while making modifications in the draftdevelopment plan and regulations, it was held as follows:"33. The Court is entitled to examine whether therehas been any material available with the StateGovernment and the reasons recorded, if any, in theformation of opinion and whether they have anyrational connection with or relevant bearing on theformation of the opinion. The Court is entitledparticularly, in the event, when the formation of theopinion is challenged to determine whether theformation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious orwhimsical. It is always open to the court to examinethe question whether reasons for formation of opinionhave rational connection or relevant bearing to theformation of such opinion and are not extraneous tothe purposes of the statute."26.3. Applying the rationale of the Apex Court to the facts ofthe present case and this Court having examined the originalrecords in respect of the entire acquisition from which it wasfound that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Act10 of 1999, that the District Collector has conducted enquiry underSection 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and in fact, considered the cause inthe hearing based on the objections of the land owners and thepersons interested, and that the remarks of the SIPCOT, viz., therequisitioning authority, have been referred to, I am of theconsidered view that there is no statutory violation by theDistrict Collector in considering the cause of the petitioners.26.4. A Full Bench of this Court in R.Pari v. The SpecialTahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC 609,while considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition ofLand for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 wherein under Section 4and Rule 3 framed under the said Act, it is silent about holding ofany enquiry by the District Collector or Authorised Officer but theDistrict Collector is empowered to pass final orders, has held thatin such circumstances the clause contemplates the AuthorisedOfficer who conducts enquiry other than the Collector should makereport to the District Collector containing his recommendations.The Full Bench has also taken note of the said provision to theeffect that the provisions are silent about the submission of thereport of the Authorised officer to the objectors. The Full Benchhas also considered the Central Act 1 of 1894 wherein the power ofeminent domain is with the appropriate Government and held asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "18. Under the State Act, the statutory provisions inthe shape of Section 4 and Rule 3 are silentregarding holding of any enquiry (either by theDistrict Collector or by the authorised officer). Thestatutory provisions merely contemplate issuance ofnotice to show cause and the Rules only contemplateissuance of notice in From I. However, such Form Ispecifically contemplates "the statement ofobjections, if any," received within the timestipulated will be enquired into "at a particularplace" on "a particular date" at the office of "aparticular officer", to be specified in such notice.The Form-I further contemplates that the personinterested is at liberty to appear and to adduce anyoral and documentary evidence in support of hisobjection. It is no doubt true that such a notice inthe statutorily prescribed form can be considered aspart of the Rules. However, the procedure to befollowed by the authorised officer is not specificallylaid down, save and except as contained in Section 4(3)(b). This clause only contemplates that the officerauthorised shall make report to the District Collectorcontaining his recommendations on the cause so shownfor the decision of the District Collector. It furthercontemplates that the District Collector may pass suchorders as he may deem fit after considering suchreport. The provisions contained in the Act, the Rulesor in Form-I do not specifically envisage as to whichrecord will be placed before the District Collector.Similarly the provisions are silent as to whether thecopy of report of the authorised officer is requiredto be furnished to the objectors. The principles ofnatural justice regarding furnishing of copy of reportcan be considered as super added to such provisions.It cannot be said that merely because the Form-I doesnot specifically prescribe any further opportunity,such opportunity is impliedly prescribed. Since theCentral Act had specifically and in detail madecertain provisions, it is reasonable to conclude thatthe Central Act has exhaustively laid down the mannerin which and the extent of principles of naturaljustice is required to be complied with and impliedlyexcluded any other extension of principles of naturaljustice; whereas under the State Act the statutoryprovisions and the Rules being silent, the scope andextent of natural justice to be followed need not beconfined to whatever has been, described in theForm-I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. Under the Central Act, the power of eminent domainis with the appropriate Government, which obviouslywould mean an officer of very high rank andexperience, whereas under the State Act it is with theCollector, who obviously is an officer of muchinferior rank and less experience as compared to theSecretary to the Government. Since enormous power andresponsibility have been vested with a comparativelyless senior and less experienced officer, to lessenthe possibility of any arbitrary and immature decisionbeing taken, it is always desirable to strengthen theprocedural safeguard by reading into the provisions,the principles of natural justice in the shape of atleast giving an opportunity of making a furtherrepresentation to the Collector on therecommendation/report of the authorised officer."26.5. Applying the ratio to the facts of the present case inrespect of Act 10 of 1999 wherein also Section 3(3) has onlyenabled the District Collector as a delegated authority to hear andconsider the cause shown by the owners or persons interested, itshould only mean that the District Collector after considering thecause has to give his recommendation to the Government which is theauthority under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 to pass the ultimatenotification. Further, as the Full Bench has held that there is noprovision for enabling the objector to receive the report ofenquiry and therefore, the question of forwarding the report orproposal of the District Collector to the objector does not ariseon the facts and circumstances of the present case also.27. Since in all these cases the notice required as perSection 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in Form-A and Form-B has been issuedand the objections were called for and objections have been in factconsidered by the District Collector, I am of the considered viewthat stretching of the statutory obligations beyond the limitswould only be antithesis to the very object of Act 10 of 1999,which cannot be compared to the nature of enquiry contemplatedunder Section 5-A of the Central Act 1 of 1894. Further, inrespect of land acquisition relating to individual cases, when theobject is not for the larger interest of the society, necessarilythe power of eminent domain has to be restricted by imposingstringent obligation on the authority under law to conduct enquiryin proper manner by scrupulously following the procedurecontemplated under the Act and the principles of natural justice tothe fullest extent, but in cases like this where the largerinterest of the State is involved, since the purpose is to have the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ industrial development developing the area as an industrial area,of course for the purpose of giving it to individual entrepreneursat a later point of time, the question of considering in detail theobjections of individual owners would only thwart the very objectof the Act 10 of 1999 and consequently the better development ofthe State.28. Further, it has to be stated that out of the large numberof owners of various portions of the vast extent sought to beacquired, only a limited number of persons have raised objections,out of whom many have objected only in respect of the compensationwhich can always be worked out in the manner known to law and fewof them like the writ petitioners alone have approached this Court.29. However, in some of the cases where large extent of landshave been purchased by some of the writ petitioners with an idea ofputting up an industry, it cannot be said to be against the verypurport of Act 10 of 1999 and in respect of those cases, while itis true that it is ultimately for the respondents to decide afterformation of the industrial area to give it to individualentrepreneurs on the basis of merit, at the same time, it isincumbent on the Government to consider any legitimate claim madeby such writ petitioners for allotment of alternate sites forestablishing their industry and certainly such genuine claims byindividual petitioners should be considered in proper perspective.Therefore, it is made clear that such cases may be considered bythe Government taking note of the larger interest of the industrialdevelopment of the State, by providing alternate site in otherplace than the present place of acquisition to the individualpetitioners, who genuinely seek to put up an industry. In view ofthe same it is always open to such of the petitioners as statedabove to make proper representations to the State Government aswell as the SIPCOT for providing alternate place, in which case itis for the Government to consider the same on merits and inaccordance with law and pass appropriate orders.These writ petitions are dismissed with the aboveobservations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.sasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Secretary Government of Tamilnadu Industries Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The District Collector Kancheepuram District.3. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Irunkattukottai Expansion Scheme-I, Sriperumbudur Kancheepuram District.4. The Chairman and Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporationof Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) No.19A Rukmani LakshmipathiSalai, Chennai-8.5. The District Revenue Officer,Kancheepuram District,Collector's Office CompoundKancheepuram1 cc to Mr. R. Govindaraj, Advocate, SR. 46263 cc to Mr.K. Ramachndran, Advocate, SR. 4631, 4130, 46321 cc to Mr.C. Prabakaran, Advocate, SR. 49301 cc to Mr.R. Vijayakumar, Advocate, Sr. 45911 cc to mr.M. Damodaran, Advocate, Sr. 46251 cc to Mr. Thankasivan, Advocate, Sr. 45831 cc to Mr.J. Saravanavel, Advocate, Sr. 46992 ccs to Mr.R. Manickavel, Advocate, SR. 49312 ccs to M/s. Ramalingam, and Associates, SR. 49444 ccs to mr.M. Devaraj, Advocate, Sr. 49121 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 5125W.P.Nos.10918, 26183, 26436 of2008, 17850 to 17852 of 200930570 and 30221 of 2007, 9348,9349, 12611, 13250 to 13254, 13299to 13304, 13041 to 13043, 16942,20442, 21335, 12677 to 12683,18461, 20431 to 20433 of 2008 and13549 of 2009KS (CO)kk,km,sra,tp,rh 23/2