Mr.J.Doraibabu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu

1.M/s.Triway Container Freight Station Pvt.Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, No.14, Jaffar Street, Chennai-600001.2.Venkatapathy Naidu3.Govindarajan4.Krishnamurthy.. Appellants in W.A.856/2008Vs.1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort George, Chennai-600009....I REspondent in W.A.855/082.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.The Secretary to GovernmentCommercial Tax DepartmentChennai-9...I Respondent in W.A.856/083.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme-Phase 4, Sriperumbudur. .. Respondents in both theW.As. W.A.Nos.859 to 863/2008: Pastor K.Aaron Anandhan,Pillarof Fire of Jesus Ministries,Plot No.15, Naveen Nagar,Mersia Street,(Near Orakadam Junction),Orakadam-602105,Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District... Appellant in W.A.859/2008Mr.T.Parthiban.. Appellant in W.A.860/2008Mr.G.Ramachandran.. Appellant in W.As.861 & 862/2008Mrs.M.Santhi.. Appellant in W.A.863/2008Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.2.M/s.SIPCOT, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai-600008.3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Kancheepuram.4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT- Oragdam Extension Scheme, Sriperumbudur... Respondents in all the W.As.Writ Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent,as against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of thisCourt on 3.6.2008 respectively in W.P.Nos.30255/2007; 30256/2007;30062/2007; 29709/2007; 29113/2007; 33294/2007; 29090/2007;29707/2007; 29708/2007; 29710/2007 and 30019/2007.Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance to a (i) writ of certiorari calling for theentire records ending with GO Ms.No.191 Industries(SIPCOT-LA) andNo.II (2)/IND/360 (C/15)/2007dated 4th July 2007 in respect ofPetitioners property situated at (Manai S.p.No.No.190-28SurveyNo.49/1A3 (Survey No.49/3 as per Patta No.711 dated 6.1.2004Oragadam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram Dist 602 105measuring about (1)75 cents (26 585 sq.ft) and (2) 25 cents (8.862sq.ft) reapecitvely and quash the same (W.P.NO.30255 and30256/2007)ii writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file offirst respondent pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No. 191 (Industries)(SIPCOT L.A) dated 04.07.2007 and its consequential orders underSec.7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purpose Actpassed by the third respondent and quash the entire acquisitionproceedings ended in G.O.Ms.No. 191 (Industries) (SIPCOT L.A) dated04.07.2007 an also its consequential orders under Sec.7 of TamilnaduAcquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act passed by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent (W.P.NO.30062 of 2007)iii. writ of certiorari Calling for the entire records endingwith GO.Ms.No.191 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2) /IND/360(C/15)/2007 dt 4th July 2007 in respect of petitioners propertysituated at Plot No.16 Navin Nagar Second Stage comprised insurvey No.49/1B Oragadam village Sriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuramdistrict measuring about 2100 sq.ft. and quash the same.(W.P.NO.29709 of 2007)iv. writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for the recordscomprised in Form A notice issued by the 3rd respondent dt 27.1.2007and declaration made under Section 3(1) in G.O.Ms.No.122 Industries(SIPCOT-LA) Department dt 23.5.2007 as published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette Extraordinary No.133 dt 23.5.2007 and theconsequential Form E notice dt 9.7.2007 in respect of the lands ofthe petitioner comprised in S.Nos.70/3 70/7 70/8 70/9 70/1070/13B 70/13C 70/14 70/17 and 70/18 situate in oragadam villageSriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district and quash the same andconsequently forbear the respondents from acquiring the said landsof the petitioner (W.P.NO.29113/2007)v. Writ of certiorarified Calling for the records comprised inG.O.Ms.No.139 Industries (MIG II) Department dt 3.11.2006 and theconsequential land acquisition proceedings in respect of thesubjects lands comprised in survey Nos.69/2B 69/3 69/4 69/671/8A1 70/1 and 153/7A situate in Oragadam village Sriperumbudurtaluk Kancheepuram district and to quash the same and consequentlyforbear the respondents from acquiring the said lands. (W.P.No.33294of 2007)vi.writ of certiorari Calling for the entire records endingwith GO Ms.No.191 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2)/IND/360(C/15)/2007 dt 4th July 2007 in respect of petitioners propertysituate at Plot No.15 Navin Nagar Messla st Orakadam JunctionSriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district602 105 in survey No.49-1B14 Patta No.1325 of Village No.134 Orakadam village measuringabout 1800 sq.ft. and quash the same. (w.P.NO.29090/2007)vii.writ of certiorari Calling for the entire records endingwith GO Ms.No.191 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2) / IND/360(C/15)/2007 dt. 04.07.2007 in respect of Petitioners propertysituated at Plot No.23,8,and 6 Navin Nagar Second Stage Oragadamvillage Sriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district in 1.SurveyNo.49/1B22, 49/1B32 and 49/1B31 oragadam village, SriperumbdurTaluk, Kancheeepuram District 602 105 measuring about (i) 1800 sq.ft(ii) 1800 sq.ft. and (iii) 1800 sq.ft. and quash the same(W.P.NMo.29707, 29708 and 27910/20078) and 2.Survey No.49/1B/1B https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Oragadam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District - 602105 measuring about 23108 sq.ft. (53 cents) and quash the same.(W.P.No.30019/2007)For appellant in W.As.781 & 782/08 : Mr.R.SubramanianFor appellants in W.A.Nos.799 &800/2008: Mr.S.SubbiahFor appellants in W.A.Nos.855 &856/2008: Mr.P.Madhavan & Mr.R.KarunakaranFor appellants in W.A.Nos.859 to863/2008: Mr.s.D.S.PhilipFor respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Devarajan for SIPCOT Mr.V.Viswanathan, Spl.G.P.for State GovernmentCOMMON JUDGMENTELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.Since the issue involved in all these matters is one and thesame and they all having been filed challenging the very same commonorder passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, these mattersare heard together and are being disposed of by this commonjudgment.2. In G.O.Ms.No.125, Industries (MID1) Department, dated9.5.1997, administrative sanction was accorded by the Government ofTamil Nadu for acquisition of lands over an extent of 636.88.0hectares by invoking the urgency clause 17(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 and transfer of an extent of 190.34.0 hectaresporamboke lands in favour of Tamil Nadu Corporation for IndustrialInfrastructure Development Limited (TACID), which has beensubsequently merged with State Industries Promotion Corporation ofTamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), for setting up of an Industrial Complexat Oragadam and in eight other villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District. The Government, having felt that there issteady increase in the demand for industrial lands in closeproximity to Chennai, has decided to take up expansion of theexisting Oragadam Industrial Complex and identified 395.87.5hectares of patta and poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppamvillages in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and accordedadministrative sanction for acquisition of 91.07.0 hectares of wetland, 269.90.5 hectares of dry land and alienation of 34.90.0hectares of poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages,Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District by G.O.Ms.No.139, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 3.11.2006. Pursuant thereto,according to the respondents/authorities, notices were sent to theland owners, whose names were found in the revenue records andenquiry on the objections received from the land owners wasconducted by the District Collector, Kanchipuram on 20.3.2007 and26.3.2007 and under a series of Government Orders, all dated4.7.2007, the Government approved the publication of notices underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for IndustrialPurposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the IndustrialPurposes Act). 3. Challenging this action of the Government to acquire thelands, several land owners have filed writ petitions before thisCourt. The learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed all thewrit petitions, by the common order dated 3.6.2008 by observing that'there has been substantive compliance of service of notice, conductof hearing and also taking into consideration the larger industrialdevelopment of the State and on the basis of the Object of theIndustrial Purposes Act, apart from the fact that out of 6,500 landowners, except 16 writ petitioners (since the writ petitioner inW.P.No.29575 of 2007 (by name N.Rajendran) has accepted thecompensation and the said writ petition is dismissed as infructuous)all other persons have either accepted the compensation orsurrendered the lands by accepting the acquisition proceedings...'.The learned Judge has also observed that 'however, in respect ofcases where specific plea is raised about the occupation ofspecified portions for religious purposes or small scale industrypurpose, it is always open to the said petitioners to make properrepresentation to the Government either for the purpose ofwithdrawal of the lands from acquisition proceedings or for anyother relief. In that case, it is always open to the Government toconsider the same in accordance with law and on merits. It is alsomade clear that in cases where the petitioners are already carryingon some industrial activities, which may be referred to as'industrial purpose' under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, it is alwaysopen to the said petitioners to make proper representation to SIPCOTafter the acquisition proceedings are over, for the purpose ofallotment. In such event, it is for the SIPCOT as well as theGovernment to consider their case in accordance with law and onmerits and pass appropriate orders.'4. Aggrieved against the above said findings of the learnedsingle Judge, eleven of the writ petitioners have preferred thesewrit appeals. 5. For better assessment of the entire gamut, we feel itappropriate to narrate the facts of each case.W.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2008: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Both these appellants are brothers and according to them,there was a family partition among the legal heirs of their fatherMr.Jayaraman, who died on 28.6.1996 and a family partition waseffected under a registered partition deed dated 4.12.2003,whereunder the appellant in W.A.No.781 of 2008 (by name J.Duraibabu)became the owner of 75 cents and the appellant in W.A.No.782 of 2008(by name J.Sridhar) became the owner of 25 cents out of one acre ofland in S.No.49/3 of Oragadam village but patta remained in the nameof their father and though the appellants are paying the propertytax, no notice was issued to them by the authorities, as requiredunder the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act. It is alsotheir case that though they are paying the property tax, water tax,electricity charges and they were also issued with the family cards,thus showing mutation in other revenue records and were also grantedproper approval by the concerned authority for the construction ofthe shopping complex, no notices were issued to them and therefore,the entire acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of theirlands are null and void. 7. The contentions of these appellants were countered by thethird respondent stating that no notice has to be issued to theappellants in view of the fact that the property stands in the nameof Mr.Jayaraman and as no mutation of land records was done, thestatutory authorities cannot be found fault with for non-issuance ofnotice to the present owners.W.A.No.799/2008:8. The case of this appellant is that he is the owner of anextent of 8163 sq.ft. of land in S.No.49/1A3 and 1A5 of Oragadamvillage, having been purchased by him as per the sale deed dated18.5.2006, for setting up an industry. After purchase, he has alsoobtained necessary licenses from the General Manager, DistrictIndustries, Kanchipuram. Even though his property was also asubject matter of the acquisition, no notice was issued to him atany point of time.9. The third respondent in this appeal has filed a counteraffidavit stating that the property stood in the name ofMr.Jayaraman and hence notice was issued in the name of the saidJayaraman and subsequently, records were verified in the SubRegistrar's Office and accordingly, the name of the appellant wasincluded in the notification issued under Section 3(1) of theIndustrial Purposes Act.W.A.No.800/2008:10. According to this appellant, he along with his wifepurchased the immovable property in S.No.49/1B of Oragadam village,measuring about 2100 sq.ft., as per the sale deed dated 31.1.2005,but no notice was issued to him by the Government with respect tothe acquisition in question, however, his wife received a noticedated 20.4.2007 from the fourth respondent calling upon her to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inform as to whether she was willing to surrender the property tothe Government for the proposed project of SIPCOT and the appellant,as per his reply dated 12.5.2007 informed the fourth respondent thathe has no intention of giving the property and he has objection foracquiring the property, but, however, there was no follow up actionwith notice to him. It is also his contention that no notice wasissued to him at any point of time and the first notification wasissued without any kind of enquiry and as such, it was against theprinciples of natural justice. 11. The third respondentcontended that the property stood only in the name of Mr.Jayaramanand hence notice was issued only in his name, but since there was noreply, further proceedings were continued, exparte.W.A.Nos.855 and 856/2008:12. According to the appellant in W.A.No.855 of 2008, who isthe Managing Director of the first appellant company inW.A.No.856/2008, he has purchased an extent of 5.04 acres of land inS.No.70/3, 70/7, 70/8, 70/9, 70/10, 70/13B, 70/13C, 70/14, 70/17 and17/18 under a sale deed dated 11.4.2006 and another extent of 7acres as per the sale deed dated 22.5.2007. The properties aresituated at Oragadam and Vadakkupattu villages in SriperambadurTaluk in Kancheepuram District. A communication dated 24.4.2007 wassent to him, calling upon him as to whether he is willing for therate of compensation fixed by the authorities for acquiring hisproperty. By way of the said notice, the third respondent hasoffered a sum of Rs.14 lakhs per acre. This appellant has submitteda reply on 27.4.2007, wherein it was indicated that the propertyitself was purchased for the purpose of setting up an industry andas such, there was no question of acquiring the said land, but,nothing was heard thereafter. He ultimately came to know that anorder under Section 3(1) of the Industrial Purposes Act was passedon 23.5.2007, which made him to initiate the present writproceedings. 13. The third respondent has filed a counter in the writpetition wherein they have challenged the very maintainability ofthe writ petition. According to the third respondent, notice inForm-A was issued under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Acton 27.1.2007, however, there was no reply to the said notice andtherefore, the statutory authorities proceeded with the process ofacquisition and ultimately a notification under Section 3(1) wasissued. 14. While W.A.No.855 of 2008 has been filed by the ManagingDirector of Triway Container Freight Station Private Limited in hisindividual capacity, W.A.No.856 of 2008 has been filed by the saidcompany, along with others.15. In W.A.No.856/2008, the case of the appellants is that eventhough they are purchasers of the properties from the secondappellant, no notice was issued to them and the property wasacquired from them. This has been stiffly opposed by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, by filing a counter affidavit stating that the secondappellant has sold the properties after receipt of the notice andthus the appellants are the subsequent purchasers of the properties.It has also been contended on the part of the respondents in thiscase that in the earlier proceedings in W.P.No.3111/2007, theoriginal owner/the second appellant has accepted the compensationand has in fact, withdrawn the writ petition and hence, the presentwrit petition is barred by res judicata.W.As.859 to 863 of 2008:16. The appellants in all these appeals are the purchasers fromthe heirs of Jayaraman (father of the appellants in W.A.Nos.781 and782/2008). The common ground of attack to the land acquisitionproceedings is similar to that of the appellants in W.A.Nos.781 and782/2008 that no individual notices were issued to them at any pointof time. It is the case of the appellant in W.A.No.859 of 2008 thatafter purchase of the property, they have constructed a Church withpastor's residence in the ground floor and prayer hall in the firstfloor in the property in the year 2006 and regularly conductingprayers and other religious activities therein. 17. The case of the appellant in W.A.No.863 of 2008 is that shehas purchased an extent of 53 cents of land in S.No.49/1B/1B ofOragadam village as per the sale deed dated 6.6.2006 andsubsequently a patta was also issued in her name as per theproceedings dated 18.9.2006. Thereafter, she had put up aconstruction with eleven shops. She has put up a small scaleindustrial unit in a separate asbestos sheet covered shed measuring500 square feet and according to her, more than 30 employees areemployed in the said company, doing embroidery work and isregistered as Tiny Industry with the Industries and CommerceDepartment with Registration No.3303102158 on 20.11.2006 and about100 persons, either directly or indirectly, are employed in the saidpremises, which is a shopping complex. Thus, though she has been inpossession and enjoyment of the property, no notice of acquisitionwas issued to her and as such, she was kept in darkness about theacquisition proceedings.18. In all these matters, the common argument advanced on thepart of the respondents is that since the property stood in the nameof Mr.Jayaraman, notice was issued to him.19. The above factual aspects, would make it clear that whileW.A.Nos.855 and 856 of 2008 form one set of cases, not only withregard to the original ownership but also with regard to the factumof purchase of the property by the present appellants afterinitiation of the acquisition proceedings, all other matters inW.A.Nos.781,782,799,800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 stand on similarfooting, in the sense, the original owner is one and the same i.e.Jayaraman, in whose name alone notices are said to have been sent bythe respondents and not in the name of the present owners, theappellants in all these matters. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and discussion, weshall now proceed to discuss the matters as two sets, in the mannerexplained above.Discussion for W.A.No.855/2008:21. According to the appellant in this case, he has purchased5.04 acres of land as per the sale deed dated 11.4.2006 and afurther extent of 7 acres as per the sale deed dated 22.5.2007. Fromthe materials placed on record, it is seen that this appellant wasissued with a notice in Form 'A' under Section 3(2) of theIndustrial Purposes Act on 22.1.2007, granting him thirty days timeto submit his objections. Though this appellant has submitted inhis affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that he hassubmitted his objection on 15.2.2007, there are no documentsproduced by him to prove this aspect and in fact, even in therepresentation submitted by him on 27.4.2007, there was no referenceabout the alleged objection given by him on 15.2.2007. When, thus,the appellant has failed to submit his objections within theprescribed thirty days time permitted by law, it is not open to himto turn around and challenge the proceedings initiated by therespondents. It is also seen that an enquiry was conducted on20.3.2007 and 26.3.2007 by the authorities, but this appellant issaid to have submitted his representation well thereafter, on27.4.2007. Only in this factual backdrop, the learned single Judgehas rejected the claim of this appellant, wherein we are unable tofind any illegality so to cause our interference, since being a wellconsidered conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Eventhough this appellant tried to insist on us that the lands are wetlands and thus are exempted category, in view of the abovediscussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decisionarrived at by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this writ appealNo.855 of 2008 must fail. Discussion for W.A.No.856/2008:22. With regard to this writ appeal, the first appellantM/s.Triway Container Freight Station, has purchased the propertyfrom the original owner, the second appellant Mr.Venkatapathy Naidu,by way of a sale deed dated 7.5.2007. It is to be pointed out thatthe notice under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act wasissued in these cases on 20.2.2007. Therefore, it goes withoutsaying that the first appellant herein has purchased the propertyafter initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.23. It is also seen from the materials placed on record thatthe second appellant in this case viz. Venkatapathy Naidu, being theoriginal owner, has earlier filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.3111 of2007, challenging the very same acquisition proceedings, which wasdismissed as withdrawn as he has accepted the compensation andthereafter, the present writ proceedings in W.P.No.33294 of 2007were initiated, after selling the property to the first appellant.It is also seen that while in the present writ proceedings seven https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ survey numbers have been given viz. 69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6, 71/8A1,70/1 and 153/7A, in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.3111 of2007, the original owner has included five survey numbers, exceptS.Nos.153 and 70/1. As the original owner himself has accepted forthe compensation and withdrawn the earlier writ proceedings inW.P.No.3111 of 2007, he is restrained under the principles of resjudicata to once again file the present writ proceedings for thevery same survey numbers in 69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6 and 71/8A1.Even with respect to the other two survey numbers, which areincluded in the present writ proceedings in S.Nos.153 and 70/1,Section 3(2) notices have been issued to the secondappellant/Mr.Venkatapathy Naidu being the original owner on20.2.2007 and well thereafter, he has sold the property to the firstappellant company on 7.5.2007. Therefore, no remedy can be madeavailable to these appellants as they have not approached the Courtwith clean hands. This aspect has been dealt with in a propermanner by the learned single Judge, and therefore, the same does notcall for our interference. Even though this appellant tried toinsist on us that the lands are wet lands and thus are exemptedcategory, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any reasonto interfere with the well considered decision arrived at by thelearned single Judge. Hence, this appeal is liable only to bedismissed. Discussion for W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 :24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants inW.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2008 would argue that when the firstnotification, to acquire the lands, was issued under the IndustrialPurposes Act (which is the subject matter in these appeals), anothernotification was also issued for the same properties under thenotification dated 17.12.2009, published in the Tamil Newspapers'Thina Thanthi' on 6.1.2010, by the Kanchipuram District Collector,on behalf of the Highways Department. Therefore, it has been arguedon behalf of these appellants that the earlier notification issuedunder the Industrial Purposes Act has, thus, been superseded by thesubsequent notification and hence, the earlier notification shouldbe deemed to have been gone. In support of his contentions, thelearned counsel for the appellants would rely on a judgment of theHonourable Apex Court in RAGHUNATH vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(1988)3 SCC 294 = AIR 1988 SC 1615], wherein, at Para No.9, it has beenheld as follows: "9. Before concluding we must refer to one circumstancewhich was brought to our notice by learned counsel for thepetitioners and which has also been noticed in thejudgment of the High Court. It appears that, between thedate of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (namely,August 23, 1983) and the issue of the second declaration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 6 (namely, April 4, 1985), the governmenthad issued a fresh notification under Section 4 for theacquisition of certain lands. The lands in the twonotifications under Section 4 do not completely overlapbut it appears that some fields are common in both. Nodeclaration under Section 6 appears to have been issued infurtherance of the second notification under Section 4when the High Court heard the matter. Learned counsel forthe petitioner points out that, at least in respect ofsuch of the lands comprised in the Section 4 notificationdated June 22, 1982 as are also covered by the subsequentnotification under Section 4, it is legitimate to inferthat the State Government has superseded the earliernotification by the later one. This contention is clearlywell founded. We would, therefore, like to make it clearthat in respect of the lands covered by the firstnotification under Section 4 which are also covered by, orcomprised in, the second notification under Section 4,further proceedings regarding acquisition should be taken,in accordance with law, only in pursuance of the laternotification and the proceedings initiated in respect ofsuch lands by the first notification dated June 22, 1982should be deemed to have been superseded."25. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsin W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 appellantswould argue that no notice was served on them and even if the noticehas been sent in the name of their father Jayaraman, it would havebeen returned with the endorsement 'addressee dead', but theauthorities have not filed the returned notice.26. It has also been argued on their behalf that notice againsta dead person vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings and wouldrely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in I.I.S.EMPLOYEESHOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[(2005) 12 SCC 483], wherein under similar circumstances of noticehaving been issued to father who had died and not to his son whosename had already been entered in the revenue record, the HonourableApex Court has held that 'notice of acquisition should have beenissued to son and in the absence thereof, son had been deprived ofhis valuable right to file objections under Section 5-A of the LandAcquisition Act and hence the notification issued under Section 4and declaration under Section 6 are quashed.'.27. The learned counsel would also rely on a judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court in SAVITHIRIAMMAL vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU [(2006) 3 MLJ 389] wherein also a Division Bench of this Courthas held that notification in the name of a dead person is non-est.This judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been followed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by a learned single Judge of this Court in LEELAVATHI vs. STATE OFT.N. [2008 (3) CTC 490], whereupon also much reliance has beenplaced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 28. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellants that incase of development of industrial area, that area must have beendeclared by the Government, by notification, to be an 'industrialarea' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Industrial Purposes Act, butin the cases on hand, no such notification, declaring the area as'industrial area' has been issued. It is also their argument thatspeedy disposal cannot dispense with the enquiry when the IndustrialPurposes Act and Rules specifically provide for meaningful hearingand enquiry in contra distinction to Section 17 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, where the Government is empowered to dispensewith enquiry. 29. It is also the argument of the learned counsel appearingfor the appellants in these matters is that the Collector, as thedesignated authority of the Government, has to personally sign everyform 'A'; issued under Rule 3 and since it is not the case in allthese matters, the entire proceedings shall be held to be illegal.30. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of therespondents/authorities would argue that the Industrial Purposes Actis a special statute enacted by the State in order to speedilyacquire the lands for industrial purposes and as the notificationissued under Section 3(2) and 3(1) specifically state that thepurpose of acquisition is for expansion of the Oragadam IndustrialPark and hence, no specific notification declaring the areas as an'industrial area' before commencement of the acquisition proceedingis warranted. With regard to the argument of the appellants thatthe Form 'A' notice has not been signed by the Collector, thelearned Advocate General would argue that in industrial acquisitionof this size, hundreds of acres of lands may fall for acquisitionand may involve thousands of land owners and hence it would not bepractically possible for the collector to sign every individual form'A' notice; that as a matter of fact, the Form 'B' public noticecontemplated under Rule 4 has been signed by the Collector only andhas been published in seven prominent locations including 'tom tom'as contemplated by the Rules; that under Section 25(2)(b) of theIndustrial Purposes Act, the Government may make Rules for manner ofauthentication of orders an other instruments of the Collector, butno rules have been framed regarding this matter as yet andtherefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Collectorshould personally sign every Form 'A' and it may be noted that the'office copy' of the Form 'A' maintained by the acquiring authorityhas been signed by the Collector.31. The learned Advocate General would further argue thatservice of notice on the person shown as owner or occupier in therecord of rights is sufficient and in all these matters, noticeswere sent to the person whose names are depicted in the revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ records as owner i.e. Mr.Jayaraman. He would further argue that thenotice sent to Mr.Jayaraman has been returned with endorsement'left' and hence, it should be construed that the notice has beensent as per Section 14 of the Industrial Purposes Act. The learnedAdvocate General would further argue that the relief under Article226 being discretionary, the Court should always keep in mind thelarger interest of the society, as against the individual right. Hewould further argue that since no prejudice is caused to theappellants, their cases should be thrown away, considering thelarger interest of the public in establishment of such an industrialarea in the locality. 32. The learned Advocate General would rely on the followingjudgments:1. W.B.HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS vs. BRIJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA[(1997) 6 SCC 207];2. AHUJA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2003) 5SCC365];3. SHARP TOOLS vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (FB) [2006 (4) CTC785];4. RAMNIKLAL N.BHUTTA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(1997) 1SCC 134];5. GIRIAS INVESTMENT (P) LTD. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA[(2008) 7 SCC 53].33. In the first judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has heldthat 'service of notice stood completed when notice served on theperson recorded as owner in Record of Rights. It is not part of theduty of the Collector to make roving enquiry into ownership ofpersons.'34. In the second judgment cited above, the Honourable ApexCourt has held that 'service of notice on the person shown as owneror occupier in the record of rights is sufficient.'35. In the third judgment cited above, a Full Bench of thisCourt has held that 'further enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is a discretion given to theCollector, unlike 'hearing' which is mandatory'.36. In the fourth judgment cited above, the Honourable ApexCourt has held that 'the power under Article 226 is discretionaryand it will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justiceand not merely on the making out of a legal point.'37. In the fifth judgment cited above, the Honourable ApexCourt has held that 'though the rights of the individual whoseproperty is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, anacquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to belightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exit or doing so.'38. In this factual matrix, to assess the legal submissionsadvanced on either side, we shall now look into various provisions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.39. Section 2(c) defines the term 'Industrial area' as 'anyarea declared by the Government, by notification, to be anindustrial area'. Section 2(d) defines 'industrial estate' as 'anysite selected by Government, where the Government builds factoriesand other buildings and makes them available for any industry'.Section 2(e) defines 'industrial purpose' as 'includes the startingof a new industry, expansion of an existing industry, thedevelopment of an industrial area and establishment and managementof an industrial estate.'40. Section 3 of the Act deals with 'power to acquire land'.Under this Section, the Government has got the power to acquire landor industrial purposes. Section 3 reads as under:"3. Power to acquire land – (1) If, at any time, in the opinion of the Government, anyland is required for any industrial purposes, or for anyother purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act,they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette a notice specifying the particularpurpose for which such land is required.(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), theGovernment shall, call upon the owner and any otherperson, who in the opinion of the Government may beinterested in such land, to show cause within such time asmay be specified in the notice, why the land should not beacquired. The Government shall also cause a public noticeto be given in such manner as may be prescribed.(3) The Government may pass an order under sub-section (1)after hearing and considering the cause, if any, shown bythe owner or person interested."41. Section 4 contemplates that 'land acquired to vest inGovernment free from all encumbrances'. It reads as follows:"4. Land acquired to vest in Government free from allencumbrances -(1) When a notice under sub-section (1) of section 3ispublished in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the landto which the said notice relates shall, on and from thedate of such publication, vest absolutely in theGovernment free from all encumbrances:Provided that if before actual possession of suchland is taken by, or on behalf of, the Government, itappears for the Government, that the land is no morerequired for the purpose of this Act, the Government may,by notice published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette,withdraw the land from acquisition. On the publication ofsuch notice, the land shall revest with retrospectiveeffect in the person from whom it was divested on theissue of order under sub-section (1) of section 3, subject https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to such encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at thattime:Provided further that the owner and other personsinterested shall be entitled to payment of an amount asdetermined in accordance with the provisions of section 7for the damage, if any, suffered by them in consequence ofthe acquisition proceedings. (2) Where any land is vested in the Government under sub-section (1), the Government may, by order, direct anyperson who may be in possession of the land to surrenderor deliver possession thereof to the Collector or anyperson duly authorised by him in this behalf within thirtydays of the service of the order.(3) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an ordermade under sub-section (2), the Collector may takepossession of the land, and may, for that purpose, usesuch force as may be necessary."42. Section 14 of the Act deals with 'service of notices, etc.'and it reads as follows:"14. Service of notices, etc. -(1) All notices, orders and other documents required bythis Act or any rule made thereunder to be served upon anyperson shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act orsuch rule, be deemed to be duly served, -(a) where the person to be served is a company, theservice is effected in accordance with the provisions ofsection 51 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of1956);(b) where the person to be served is a firm, if thedocument is addressed to the firm at its principal placeof business, identifying it by the name or style underwhich its business is carried on, and is either -(i) sent under a certificate of posting or by registeredpost, or(ii) left at the said place of business;(c) where the person to be served is a statutory publicbody or a corporation or a society or other body, if thedocument is addressed to the Secretary, Treasurer or otherhead officer of that body, corporation or society at itsprincipal office and is either -(i) sent under a certificate of posting or by registeredpost; or(ii) left at that office; (d) in any other case, if the document is addressed to theperson to be served and -(i) is given or tendered to him; or(ii) if such person cannot be found, is affixed on someconspicuous part of his last known place of residence or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ business or is given or tendered to some adult member ofhis family or is affixed on some conspicuous part of theland or building to which it relates; or(iii) is sent under a certificate of posting, or byregistered post to that person.(2) Any document which is required or authorised to beserved on the owner or occupier of any land or buildingmay be addressed "the owner" or "the occupier", as thecase may be, of that land or building (naming that land orbuilding) without further name or description, and shallbe deemed to be duly served -(a) if the document so addressed is sent or delivered inaccordance with clause (d) of sub-section (1); or(b) if the document so addressed or a copy thereof soaddressed, is given or tendered to some person on the landor building or, where there is no person on the land orbuilding to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to someconspicuous part of the land or building.(3) where a document is served on the firm in accordancewith this section, the document shall be deemed to beserved on each partner.(4) For the purpose of enabling any document to be servedon the owner of any property, the occupier (if any) of theproperty may be required by notice in writing by theGovernment, to state the name and address of the ownerthereof."43. A harmonious reading of the entire provisions of the Actwould make it clear that this Act while aiming to immediatelyacquire the lands for industrial purposes, has never dispensed withthe well acclaimed principle of audi alteram partem. Though underSection 4(1) it has been ordered that the lands shall vestabsolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances, afterpublication of the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act in theGazette, the Legislature has mandated, in the form of Section 3(2),a show-cause notice to be issued to the owner and any other person,who in the opinion of the Government, may be interested in suchland. Section 14 has narrated the manner in which the service ofnotices etc., as has been extracted supra. 44. The learned Advocate General has argued that since therevenue records bore only the name of Mr.Jayaraman, a notice wasissued to him and the same was returned as 'left'. As has beendiscussed by us in the opening paragraphs of this judgment, the saidJayaraman, died long back, to be specific, on 28.6.1996 and thepresent acquisition proceedings have been initiated in the year 2007i.e. after a long period of eleven years. Many developments havetaken place in the meanwhile, including mutation of revenue records,since pursuant to the partition in the family, the legal heirs of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said Jayaraman have sold properties to various parties,including the appellants herein, some of whom have also obtainedpattas in their names, besides paying the necessary taxes to theGovernment in their names. While such being the factual position,the argument advanced on the part of the learned Advocate Generalthat the notices issued in the name of Mr.Jayaraman, returned as'left', looks funny, since, in such cases, the notices could bereturned only with the endorsement 'addressee died'. 45. It has been submitted on the part of the Government thatsince the chitta book has not been updated as per the patta issued,the notice was issued to Mr.Jayuaram in whose name an extent of10,050 square metres of land in S.No.190/5 is entered. Thislethargic attitude in not properly maintaining the chitta book,cannot be attributed to the appellants, so as to say that they arenot entitled for any notice nor to justify the action of therespondents/authorities in issuing the notices to the erstwhileowner, who is dead a decade back. Further more, applying the ratiolaid down by the Honourable Apex Court in I.I.S.EMPLOYEES HOUSEBUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2005)12 SCC 483] and that of a Division Bench of this Court inSAVITHIRIAMMAL vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2006) 3 MLJ 389] we have nohesitation to hold that the notice issued in the name of a deadperson is non-est in law. 46. It is also to be pointed out that when the appellants arealready in possession of the properties, pursuant to their purchaseof the properties, by paying necessary taxes to various authorities,which cannot take place until and unless the revenue records arechanged in their name, non-issuance of any individual notices tothem by the authorities, would vitiate the acquisition proceedings.Section 3(2) of the Act not only makes a mention of the owner, butalso 'any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may beinterested in such land', to show cause as to why the land shouldnot be acquired. Likewise, Section 14 of the Act recognises theright of even the 'occupier' and tabulates the manner in which theservice of notices etc. to be effected not only with regard to thecompanies, firms, but also with regard to the individuals etc. Whilethat being the legal protection afforded not only to the 'owner' butalso 'the person interested' in the land, the issuance of notice inthe name of erstwhile owner, who is dead a decade back, and non-issuance of notice to the present owners, at least considering themas 'persons interested' (since being the present occupants) areneither excusable nor curable mistakes committed on the part of therespondents/Authorities, since the authorities have given a simplego-by to the entire procedure of service of notice contemplatedunder the Act.47. Pursuant to our directions, the respondents/authoritieshave produced entire file relating to acquisition. It is seen fromthese records that the District Collector, Kanchipuram after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducting the statutory enquiry, submitted a report to theCommissioner of Land Administration, Chennai on 12.4.2007.According to the said report, an enquiry was conducted on 20.3.2007and 26.3.2007 and the venue was a marriage hall, wherein both theobjectors as well as those land owners who were agreeable to receivethe compensation offered by the authorities were present. Theobjections were not considered individually and all the objectionswere rejected by the District Collector, lock, stock and barrel.The undue haste and hurry exhibited by the District Collector insubmitting his report to the Government is the reason for thiswholesale disposal of objections by him, with no appreciation of theindividual cases. We are prompted to comment so in view of the factthat the enquiry has been conducted on 20.3.2007 and on 26.3.2007and SIPCOT has offered its views on 9.4.2007 and within three daysthereafter, i.e. on 12.4.2007 the Collector has sent his report tothe Government, which led to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.102 on16.4.2007. This undue haste would exhibit non-application mind onthe part of the Collector to the individual objections of the landowners. 48. According to the respondents/Government, Tamil Nadu is thepreferred destination for industrial activities and many industrialentrepreneurs including the multi national companies prefer TamilNadu for establishing their industrial units, particularly in andaround Chennai due to its its sincere, dedicated and skilled workforce, ambient weather conditions and well connected to the majorroads, port and airport and hence there is lot of demand for theindustrial plots and as such the Government has taken a policydecision to improve industrial infrastructure facility and provideland for establishment of industry in the State, which would, inturn, provide direct and indirect employment to the unemployed andfor the speedy acquisition of lands for the industrial purposes, theGovernment has enacted the said Industrial Purposes Act. 49. No doubt, the Industrial Purposes Act has been enacted as aspecial Act to speed up the acquisition of land for industrialpurposes. But, the Act has never dispensed with the procedure ofaudi alteram partem and in fact, the Legislature was very cautiousin blending the terms in the Act. While clarifying under Section 21of the Act that 'the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purposeof establishing the industries under this Act', the Legislature hastaken every possible caution to protect the interest of the landowners, persons interested and also the occupiers of the lands. Inspite of sufficient safeguards have been inducted into the Act bythe Legislature, keeping in mind not only the welfare of the landowners but also the other persons, who are interested in such lands,they have been given a simple go-by by the authorities. Strictcompliance of the procedure contemplated under the Act is a must,particularly when the procedure contemplated under the Act itself https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ being a summary one. The non-issuance of the notice to the presentowners, even though they have purchased the properties long beforethe initiation of the impugned acquisition proceedings and in spiteof the fact that pattas have also been issued in the names of someof these owners and issuance of the notice in the name of theerstwhile owner, who is dead a decade back, cannot, at any stretchof imagination, be called as a compliance of the scheme of thingsmandated under the Act. 50. Therefore, as has already been held by us supra, thisillegality committed on the part of the respondents/Authoritieswould vitiate the acquisition proceedings initiated against theproperties of these appellants. 51. The judgments relied on by the learned Advocate General,extracted supra, holding that notice issued in the name of theperson, whose name has been reflected in revenue records, cannot bemade applicable to these cases for the simple reason that theseappellants are in possession and enjoyment of the respectiveproperties, pursuant to registered sale deeds/partition deedsexecuted in their favour and by paying necessary taxes to theauthorities concerned, besides some of them obtaining pattas intheir name. When all these legal actions on the part of theappellants would suggest that the revenue records should havereflected their names as the owners of the respective properties,the contra contentions made on the part of the learned AdvocateGeneral, that too after accepting the fact that chitta books havenot been properly maintained by the authorities, cannot be accepted.In view of this factual position, the judgments relied on by thelearned Advocate General would not augment the case of therespondents/authorities.52. At this juncture, we feel it apt to mention that Rule 6 ofthe Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules,2001 deals with the 'hearing of objections by the Government'. Forbetter understanding we shall now extract hereunder the said Rule:"6. Hearing of objections by the Government -(a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person whois not interested in the Land, it shall be summarilyrejected.(b) If any objections are received from a personinterested in the land, within the time prescribed in rule3 or 4, the Government shall fix a date for hearing theobjections and give notice thereof to the objector or aswell as to the department or company requiring the land.Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to suchdepartment or company. The Department or company may fileon or before the date fixed by the Government, a statementby way of answer to the objections and may also depute arepresentative to attend the enquiry.(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Government, theGovernment shall hear the objector, or a person authorisedby him in this behalf, or his pleader and therepresentative, if any, of the department or company andrecord any evidence that may be produced by both insupport of the objections and in support of the need foracquiring the land."53. This Rule seeks to ensure free and fair hearing ofobjections by the Government, which is also the aim of Section 5-Aof the Land Acquisition Act. The importance of such an enquiry hasbeen expressed in clear terms by the Honourable Apex Court inHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI[(2005) 7 SCC 627], has held as follows:"8. .... The court in a case, where there has been totalnon-compliance or substantial non-compliance with theprovisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold itshands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner.Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders adeclaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when thedecision-making process itself is in question, the powerof judicial review can be exercised by the court in theevent the order impugned suffers from well-knownprinciples viz. illegality, irrationality and proceduralimpropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authorityexercises such enormous power it must be done in a fairand reasonable manner.9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be aneffective one and not a mere formality. Formation ofopinion as regards the public purpose as also suitabilitythereof must be preceded by application of mind as regardsconsideration of relevant factors and rejection ofirrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making processmust not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not indispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuableimportant right and having regard to the provisionscontained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has beenheld to be akin to a fundamental right."54. Applying these norms also to the cases on hand, we have nohesitation to hold that there is utter violation of the mandatoryprinciples of natural justice, which is not the intention of thevery Industrial Purposes Act, which would vitiate the entireproceedings.55. Coming to the arguments advanced on the part of theappellants that even though the present impugned proceedings wereinitiated under the Industrial Purposes Act, the District Collector,Kanchipuram has again issued a notification dated 17.12.2009, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ published in the Tamil Newspapers 'Thina Thanthi' on 6.1.2010, onbehalf of the Highways Department, and hence the earliernotification has been superseded by the latter one, applying theratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in RAGHUNATH vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA [(1988) 3 SCC 294 = AIR 1988 SC 1615], extractedabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the earlier notification(which is the impugned subject in these appeals) has been supersededand even on this count, no proceedings could be carried on by theauthorities/respondents. 56. With regard to the arguments advanced on the part of theappellants that Form 'A' notices were not signed by the Collector,an argument has been advanced on the part of therespondents/authorities that under Section 25(2)(b) of theIndustrial Purposes Act, the Government may make Rules for themanner of authentication of orders and other instruments of theCollector.57. Under G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI(1)) Department, dated2.9.2005, the Government has delegated its powers to DistrictCollectors under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for IndustrialPurposes Act, 1997 thereby directing that all the powers exercisableby the Government under the Act, except the powers excluded inSection 23-A, shall be exercised by the Collectors of the districtsconcerned. This came into effect from 2.9.2005. Though underSection 25(2)(b) of the Act, it has been mentioned that theGovernment may make rules to provide or regulate the manner ofauthentication of orders and other instruments of the Collector, ashas been admitted by the Advocate General himself, no such ruleshave been framed. Therefore, it follows that the DistrictCollectors have to discharge the duties of the Government under theAct. While so, the flimsy reason offered on the part of therespondents/authorities that given the bulk nature, it ispractically impossible for the District Collector to sign the 'A'Form, cannot be appreciated. The other thing to be pointed out isthat when the Collector is able to sign the office copies of theForm 'A' notice, as has been submitted on the part of the learnedAdvocate General, what made the Collector not to sign the original?This question remained unanswered on the part of therespondents/authorities. 58. to the other point urged on the part of the appellantsthat without declaring the area as an industrial estate', the landsshould not be acquired by the Government, we have to once again lookinto the definition Sections 2(d) and 2(e), whereunder the terms'industrial estate' and 'industrial purpose' are defined. UnderSection 2(e) it has been clearly stated that the term 'industrialpurpose includes the starting of a new industry, expansion of anexisting industry, the development of an industrial area andestablishment and management of an industrial estate'. Thus, under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Section not only the starting of a new industry but also theexpansion of an existing industry and even the development of anindustrial area have been brought into the fold of industrialpurpose. In view of the expanded meaning given in this definitionclause, in our considered view, no such prior declaration of thearea as an industrial estate is necessary before acquiring the land.Accordingly, this argument advanced on the part of the appellants isrejected. Additional discussion with regard to W.A.No.859/2008:59. The appellant has constructed a Church with pastor'sresidence in the ground floor and prayer hall in the first floorduring the year 2006 and thereafter formed a Trust under the nameand style of 'Pillar of Fire of Jesus Ministries'. The appellanthas produced before us a copy of the patta issued in his name by therevenue authorities on 28.3.1996 bearing Patta No.1325, which isavailable at Page No.21 of the second typed set of papers filed bythe appellant. 60. The fact that places of worship and public utility liketemples, kalyana mandapam, rice mill, petrol bunk etc. were exemptedfrom the scheme was not denied on the part of the Government also.Even though there is voluminous material on record to show that theappellant has represented to the authorities for the same relief,the same was paid deaf ears by the authorities, compelling him toinitiate the present writ proceedings. When the appellant's namehas been mutated into the revenue records and he was also issuedwith a patta, the argument advanced on the part of the Governmentthat they have issued notice in the name of Mr.Jayaraman, theoriginal owner since the revenue records reflected the name of onlyMr.Jayaraman, cannot be appreciated. The sale of this appellant wasa registered one and he was also issued with the patta. Theappellant was attending to the religious activities, as could beseen from the photographs filed in the typed set of papers filedbefore us. Therefore, while on one hand, the acquisitionproceedings are bad for non-issuance of the mandatory notice to theappellant, on the other hand, the appellant is also entitled forexemption for the property under the caption of place of worship asthe respondents/authorities have failed to explain, much lesslegally, as to what had prompted them to discriminate this appellantfor exemption, while such other similarly placed organisations havebeen exempted from the purview of land acquisition. Thisacquisition of the land belonging to a religious worship is againstthe very policy of the Government as could be seen from G.O.No.1630Revenue Department, dated 26.9.1984, whereby and whereunder theGovernment has evolved a policy of not acquiring the places ofreligious worship. On all these counts, the appellant's case needto be upheld and accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed. Additional discussion with regard to W.A.No.863/2008:61. The fact that the appellant herein is running a small scale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ industry in the property, after purchase of the same, has not beendenied on the part of the respondents. The industry being run bythe appellant is a tiny industry, for which the Industries andCommerce Department has also issued a Registration No.3303102158 on20.11.2006. Even prior to the establishment of the present tinyindustry by the appellant, there was a rice mill run by the familyof the appellant and only after demolition of the same, the presentshopping complex has been built by the appellant. 62. The purpose of the present impugned acquisition is to allotplots to the small scale industries. When the factum of theappellant running a tiny industry in the area has not been denied ordisputed by the authorities by producing any material, we wonder asto what desired purpose would be served by acquiring the lands ofthe already existing tiny and small scale industries and allottingthe same lands to the other small scale industries to commence theirbusiness operations. We are unable to appreciate this actionadopted on the part of the Government. Hence, this appeal isentitled to be allowed not only on the fact that no proper noticehas been issued to her, but also on the ground that such a tinyindustry should not be disturbed for establishing an industrial areain the locality. 63. From the above discussion, we arrive at the followingconclusions:(i) The appellants in W.A.Nos.855 and 856 of 2008, being thepurchasers, after initiation of the acquisition proceedings, are notentitled to any relief and accordingly, these two writ appeals areliable to be dismissed.(ii) Non-service of individual notices on the appellants inW.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008, in spite of thefact that they have purchased the properties long before theinitiation of the acquisition proceedings and mutation in therevenue records and issuance of notices in the name of the originalowner Mr.Jayaraman, who is dead a decade prior to the initiation ofthe acquisition proceedings vitiates the acquisition proceedings.(iii) Notice issued in the name of a dead person is non-est in law.(iv) The lock, stock and barrel rejection of the lawful objectionsraised by the appellants in W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to863 of 2008, by the District Collector, in the process of his unduehaste in sending the report to the Government, also vitiates theacquisition proceedings.(v) Coming to the arguments advanced on the part of the appellantsthat even though the present impugned proceedings were initiatedunder the Industrial Purposes Act, the District Collector,Kanchipuram has again issued a notification dated 17.12.2009,published in the Tamil Newspapers 'Thina Thanthi' on 6.1.2010, onbehalf of the Highways Department, and hence the earliernotification has been superseded by the latter one, applying theratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in RAGHUNATH vs. STATE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ OF MAHARASHTRA [(1988) 3 SCC 294 = AIR 1988 SC 1615], extractedabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the earlier notification(which is the impugned subject in these appeals) has been supersededand even on this count, no proceedings could be carried on by theauthorities/respondents. (vi) As the Collector has been delegated with the powers of theGovernment under the Act and as no Rules have been framed underSection 25(2)(b) for the Collector to delegate his such powers, non-signing of Form 'A' by the Collector cannot be appreciated.(vii) In view of the wordings in Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of theIndustrial Purposes Act, no prior declaration of declaring the areaas an industrial estate, before acquiring the land for industrialpurposes is necessary.(viii) Since the appellant in W.A.No.859 of 2008 is running a placeof worship, which are excluded categories of acquisition, he isentitled for exemption accordingly.(ix) As the appellant in W.A.No.863 of 2008 is running a tinyindustry and as the entire impugned acquisition is for industrialpurposes, no sanctity could be attached to the move of therespondents/authorities in seeking to acquire the lands of theappellant in W.A.No.863 of 2008 also. Therefore, this appellant isalso entitled for exemption. Similar is the position with regard tothe appellant in W.A.No.799 of 2008 also, who has obtained properlicence from the Industries Department for running an industry inthe locality. In the result,(i) W.A.Nos.855 and 856 of 2008 are dismissed.(ii) W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 areallowed.(iii) All the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.(iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.RaoTo1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.M/s.SIPCOT, rep.by its Managing Director, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai-600008.3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Kancheepuram.4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT-Oragadam Extension Scheme, Sriperumbudur. 5. The Chief Secretary to Government of TamilnaduFort st. George, Madras-96. The Secretary to GovernmentCommercial Tax DepartmentChennai-91 cc to Mr.S. Subbiah, Advocate, Sr. 302492 ccs to Mr.R. Karunagaran, Advocate, Sr. 30661 , 366872 ccs to Mr.R. Subramanian, Advocate, Sr. 308503 ccs to Mr.M. Devaraj, Advocate, Sr. 302815 ccs to Mr.S.D.S. Philip, Advocate, Sr. 30326 W.A.Nos.781of 2008 etc. batch.PA (CO)kk 26/5