Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch40.The Secretary to Government Industries Department, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009.. 3rd Respondent in all Writ Appeals***PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the common order passed by the learned Judge in W.P. Nos.32946 to 32949/2004, 32958, 32959 & 32960/2004, 33879 to 33881/2004, 33930 to 33932/2004, 34423, 34424 & 34425/2004, 34840 & 34841/2004, 34842/2004, 34894/2004, 39409 & 39410/2004, 5323/2006, 25501 to 25504/2006, 27813/2006, 32454 to 32457/2006, 32902 & 32903/2006, 17815/2008, 16836/2009, 1193/2013, 9767 & 9768/2018 dated 29.10.2020.***For Appellant in: Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, all Writ Appeals Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, Standing Counsel For Respondents: Mr.L.Chandrakumar, for 1st Respondent in W.A. Nos.1889, 1921, 1934 & 1992 of 2022 Ms.Gopika Nambiar, for 1st Respondent in W.A. Nos.1966 & 1998 of 2022 Ms.Gladys Daniel, for 1st Respondent in W.A. Nos.1953, 1931, 1948 & 1968 of 2022____________Page 4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch Mrs.Shobana Ramasubramanian for 1st respondent in W.A. Nos.1887, 1892, 1894, 1896, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1955, 1958, 1960, 1888, 1911, 1918, 1916, 1919, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1929, 1933, 1984 & 1997 of 2022 Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl. Govt. Pleader for Respondents 2 and 3 in all Writ Appealss COMMON JUDGMENT(made by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.)Aggrieved by the common order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos.32946 to 32949/2004 and other connected writ petitions, the first respondent in the writ petitions, namely SIPCOT, had filed these writ appeals. The facts and the grounds raised in the writ petitions are similar to each other.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Originally, the land in Survey No.83 and a fragmented extent in Survey No.85/2 at Egattur village was acquired for establishment of an Information Technology Park, Siruseri by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT). The writ petitioners have purchased their ____________Page 5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchrespective plots from one Kanniyappa Naidu since their plots formed part of an approved lay out. All the purchases had been made by the writ petitioners prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings and many of the writ petitioners had obtained patta in their names for their respective plots in the said survey numbers. 3. The requisitioning authority, namely SIPCOT, the appellant herein, made a proposal for acquisition of land. Based on that, acquisition proceedings have commenced by issuance of notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 to the land owners. The persons who came to know about the proceedings through other means, have challenged the same in W.P. Nos.27602/2004, 28202/2004, 27578/2004 and 24139/2004 contending that individual notices as per Section 3(2) of the Act was not issued to them and thereby, the notification deserves to be quashed. All the above writ petitions were allowed at the stage of admission itself on the sole ground that no individual notice under Section 3(2) of the Act had been served on the land owners. The operative portion of the order passed in the above writ petitions, is extracted hereunder:" Accordingly the impugned order is quashed reserving the liberty of the acquiring authority to issue notice to the ____________Page 6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchindividual owners concerned or any person interested about the proposed acquisition and asking for their explanation. The writ petition is ordered accordingly."4. Despite the order of this Hon'ble Court, the requisitioning authority had proceeded to issue notice under Section 4(2)(6) and 7(5) of the Act seeking surrender of the acquired lands. Aggrieved by the same, the persons affected, have filed writ petitions contending that the procedure as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act had not been followed and few more contended that the procedure under Section 7(5) regarding determination of compensation amount were not followed. The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the administrative sanction was originally granted by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.115 Industries MID Department dated 22.03.2001 by invoking Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 i.e. 'emergency clause'. 5. The lands sought to be acquired are also specified in the letter granting administrative sanction in two phases located at Egattur, Siruseri, Pudupakkam and Kalipathur of the year 2001. The learned single Judge has taken note of the earlier round of litigation challenging Section 3(2) notices which is the subject matter of the present writ proceedings. Paragraph 17 to 20 of the order reads as ____________Page 7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchfollows:"17. Before going into the merits or otherwise of the respective petitions filed by the owners in this batch, it is necessary to record certain previous proceedings held before this Court in respect of the same project lands in Egattur and Siruseri villages. It is found from the typed set of papers, that Sec.3(2) notices which is the subject matter of challenge in all these writ petitions have already been dealt with by this Hon?ble Court at the instance of various landowners. One such writ petition was W.P.No.27578 of 2004, where in the notice issued by the authorities under Section 3(2) of TN Act 1997 was challenged successfully. The Act prescribes a particular procedure which has to be strictly followed and adhered to. The authorities failed to follow the procedure under Sec.3 of the Act and hence were quashed by this Court. The benefit of the order was reflected in the Writ Petitions subsequently filed by similarly aggrieved persons in Writ Petition Nos. 27602 of 2004, 28202 of 2004 and 24139 of 2004.18. In this regard, a reference could be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2008(1) SCC 728, wherein the Hon?ble Supreme Court had affirmed that the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation and that expropriatory legislation must be strictly construed. Therefore, ____________Page 8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchany lapse on the part of the authorities in adhering to the procedure contemplated would vitiate the entire proceedings and hence the notices were quashed in the earlier round of litigations. Further, interesting aspect which is found from the records available in the form of typed set is that the Special Tahsildar, Industries Department State of Tamil Nadu preferred appeal against the quashing of 3(2) Notice made in W.P.No.27578 of 2004. The said appeal had been taken on file in Writ Appeal in W.A.No.246 of 2008. The Division Bench which dealt with the appeal had recorded the finding that the quashment of notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 1997 is proper and thereby affirmed the order of the learned single judge quashing the notice. Not stopping there, the Division Bench had recorded the counter filed by the respondents, namely, the State authorities in W.P.No.17815 of 2008 wherein similar challenge was made to the proceedings initiated in respect of the same project.19. The Division Bench had taken note of the contents of the counter affidavit wherein the Government has excluded various patta lands belonging to several owners from the acquisition proceedings. Recording the said exclusion of such of those lands whose owners questioned the correctness of the acquisition proceedings, the Hon?ble High Court confirmed the order of the learned single judge in so far as quashing of Sec. 3(2) notice.20. The Division Bench made it clear that the dismissal ____________Page 9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchof the appeal confirming quashment of Section 3(2) notice would not preclude the authorities from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh, in accordance with law. So far no such proceedings seem to have been initiated and the Govt., itself had decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings and dropped also in same cases."In the present proceedings, the petitioners had obtained an interim stay during the year 2004. It is the case of the writ petitioners/first respondents in all the writ appeals that the Government, unmindful of the interim order has proceeded further to issue notices under Section 5 and 7 of the Act, which led to the filing of the writ petitions.6. Before the writ court, the appellant/SIPCOT has filed a counter affidavit wherein it was admitted that when the acquisition proceedings were proceeded under Section 6 and 7 of the Act, which resulted in passing of award, the order which stayed Section 3(2) notice itself was in force. The learned single Judge has made an observation to the effect that there is no explanation as to how the authorities after the stay of the very notice itself have passed award by proceeding with the award enquiry.____________Page 10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch7. The learned single Judge found that the action of the State Government in treating present petitioners differently when they are in similar position to that of the other lands owners, whose lands have been released from the acquisition proceedings is discriminatory and is hit by Arts.14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. This pick and choose exercise of the authorities cannot be countenanced as the same is unconstitutional and therefore viewed from this angle as well, the action of the respondents in relieving certain lands and continuing to proceed with the petitioners lands could not be appreciated and accepted in view of the fundamental and basic principle of equality on which our Constitution thrives. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Hari Ram and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 621, observed as follows: " It is unfair on the part of the State Government in not considering the representations of the appellants, apply the same standards which were applied to other landowners while withdrawing from acquisition of their lands under the same acquisition proceedings. If this court does not correct the wrong of the State Government it may leave citizens with the belief that what counts for the citizens is right contacts with right persons in the State Government and that judicial proceedings are not efficacious."____________Page 11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch9. The learned single Judge found that further proceedings of the land acquisition authority, despite the stay granted by this court, vitiates the entire proceedings as the SIPCOT ought not to have proceeded further. Hence, any proceedings after the order of stay, is a nullity.10. The next finding is that, though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2001, the public purpose for which they were initiated would no longer survive in view of the subsequent developments and there is no use to proceed with the proceedings except to fight for an empty cause and eminent domain principle. 19 years have lapsed from the date of acquisition proceedings, the value of the land has increased manifold. Therefore, as per the new Act, namely Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the recommended compensation would resultantly be a huge compensation to the writ petitioners as the land is situated in residential area. On the above grounds, the land acquisition proceedings under the impugned notification was quashed. Aggrieved by the same, the Managing Director of the SIPCOT has preferred these appeals.____________Page 12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch12. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the land acquisition is the prerogative of the appellant, who is the requisitioning authority. Based on the request of the appellant, the land acquisition proceedings was initiated. He fairly admitted that in certain parcels of the land which were acquired, the petitioners were in enjoyment of the property based on the sale deeds and many of the writ petitioners are also having patta in their names. He further contended that Section 3(2) notice issued by the land acquisition authority is in accordance with law and in the absence of any infirmity in issuing the notice under Section 3(2) of the Act, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that no notice was served on the petitioners. He further contended that the notice was issued to the original land owner, namely Kanniyappa Naidu, therefore, the ingredients of Section 3(2) has been complied with and as such quashing of the proceedings on such ground is per se illegal. 13. This court posed a question to the learned Additional Advocate General that, whether any notice was served on the petitioners as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act? For the sake of convenience, Section 3(2) of the ____________Page 13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. BatchTamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 is reproduced hereunder:"3. Power to acquire land. - (1)......(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall call upon the owner and any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed. The learned Additional Advocate General had fairly submitted to the said query that notice was served only on the original owner, namely Kanniyappa Naidu.14. Ms.Gladys Daniel, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A. Nos.1953, 1931, 1948 & 1968 of 2022, contended that the notice under Section 3(2) was not issued to the writ petitioners, who have become the absolute landlords by virtue of mutation of revenue records and that the patta stands in their name. As the acquisition proceedings were proceeded without ascertaining and verifying the original owners or the persons interested as contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.____________Page 14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch15. The learned counsel further raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ appeals filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant is only a requisitioning authority, whereas the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and proceeded by the government and that the government alone is aggrieved by the quashment of acquisition proceedings. Though the government was made as a respondent, the government has not challenged the said proceedings. Therefore, the writ appeals filed by SIPCOT is not maintainable.16. It is clear from the notice issued by the Government that the notice as contemplated under Section 3(2) was issued only to the original owner, namely Kanniyappa Naidu, who has formed the original lay out, from whom the individual respondents have purchased the properties by way of registered sale deeds and the revenue records were also mutated in their names and patta have been issued to them. When such being the legal position, the notice ought to have been served on the individual respondents, who have purchased the properties for a valid sale consideration by virtue of their sale deeds. When the Act contemplates that a notice under Section 3(2) has to be issued to the land owner and the persons interested, even assuming that the writ petitioners are ____________Page 15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchnot having any right over the property, even then, the petitioners have right over the property as a person interested. 17. The Government before commencing the acquisition proceedings, ought to have verified the revenue records to ascertain in whose name the property stands. In the absence of any such exercise, without ascertaining the original owner or person interested, service of notice to the erstwhile owner for a larger extent of the land is per se non est in the eye of law, as Section 3(2) was not complied with and the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions.18. It is also relevant to take note of the proceedings of the appellant dated 05.09.2022 in Lr.No.LA/32946/2004/Siruseri, by which an opinion was sought from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries, Investment Promotion & Commerce Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. It is useful to refer to the opinion given by the standing counsel of the SIPCOT, which is extracted hereunder:"12. In the above context, the opinion of our Standing Counsel was called for on proceeding further on the WAs filed by SIPCOT against the order dated 29.10.2020 passed in the ____________Page 16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchbatch cases. In her opinion dt.06.08.2022 (copy enclosed), the Standing Counsel has stated, inter alia, that(i) It is seen from the records that some of the notice under section 3(2) dated 24.03.2004 seems to have been issued in the name of the original owner Kanniyappa Naidu. A conjoint reading of Section 3(1) and (2) would clearly reveal that even before the publication of the notice under Section 3(1), the Government shall call upon the owners and persons interested to show cause as to whey the land should not be acquired. In the present batch of writ petitions, some of the petitioners were not issued the said notice;(ii) It is to be noted that the Government had earlier refused to accord sanction in respect of acquisition of 53.47.5 hectares of wet and dry lands at Egattur and Navalur villages in Chengalpattu Taluk as they involve acquisition of large extent of wet lands. Further, the Government has also made a notice of caution, that these lands bordering urban areas have undergone steep price rise and the compensation being granted would be phenomenal and the same would not match the original proposal for which the entire process has to be completed;(iii) Further in the letter dated 08.09.1999 from the Industries Department addressed to the District Collector Kanchipuram, the Government considered the fact that since the lands sought to be acquired in Egattur and Siruseri villages are very near to Chennai City, the land cost for ____________Page 17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchwet/dry lands would be very high and any delay even in the year 1999 would result in higher price of acquisition, which the SIPCOT might itself may not be able to realize from the prospective purchases of the industrial plots, after the formation of this IT Park;(iv) From the records it is seen that the 3(2) notice with regard to acquisition of the land in Survye Number 83, Egattur Village has been approved by the Government in one and the same GO vide G.O.(Ms) No.29, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 16.03.2004. It is seen that in the present batch of WPs all have challenged the notice issued under Section 3(2). Interim Stay has been granted and is in force, right from the day it was granted in the year 2004. The acquisition proceedings though initiated in the year 2001 for the purpose of establishing an IT Park 20 years ago. About 71.64 acres have been dropped from acquisition proceedings after the issuance of Administrative Sanction.The Board has further discussed in the said letter as below:"13. In her opinion, the Standing Counsel has further stated that the learned judge has while allowing the WPs has stated that 'The land acquisition proceedings were initiated as early as in 2001. The public purpose for which they were initiated would have no longer survived in view of lot of subsequent developments and hence, there is no use to proceed with the proceedings except to fight for an empty ____________Page 18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchcause and Eminent Domain principle that too using the Emergency clause by demolishing the pucca building put up by the petitioners.14. Further, in the past 19 years, the cost of the lands has skyrocketed in the areas where the lands are located and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force. As per the new Act the cost to be paid to the petitioners is double the rate of the market value which definitely would not only defeat the public purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired but also would definitely be against the public interest as the money meant for the common people cannot be allowed to be wasted in fair compensation".15. She has further stated that the Hon'ble High Court, in their order dated 29.10.2020, has quashed the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated with the 3(2) notice issued in respect of the Survey Number 83, Egattur Village and that initiating land acquisition proceedings afresh would also cause payment of higher compensation comparing with selling of plot cost since compensation has to be paid under the new Central Act. Concludingly, she has opined that SIPCOT may withdraw the WA filed against the order (29.10.2020) passed in the batch cases.16. As per the opinion given by our Standing counsel above, the Hon'ble High Court in their order dt.29.10.2020 ____________Page 19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchhas quashed the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated with the 3(2) notice issued in respect of the Survey Number 83, Egattur Village. Consequent on this, the lands measuring 4.11 acres in this Survey Number, which were acquired and handed over possession to SIPCOT and which are not covered by any court case as on date in this Survey Field have also been quashed.19. In the above said letter, the Board has made its recommendations to withdraw the present writ appeals. It is relevant to extract the proceedings of the appellant in paragraph Nos.17 and 18."17.The Board of SIPCOT, at its last meeting held on 24.8.2022, after considering the opinion given above by our Standing Counsel and also the fact that these WPs had been pending for a long time for nearly 14 to 16 years till the verdict delivered on 29.10.2020 and even now it has not come to finality due to the WA filed against the said order and also considering that the lands already acquired and handed over possession to SIPCOT in this Survey Number are lying scattered and would be difficult to use them effectively and also considering that this field is lying in the periphery of the project area without affecting contiguity, resolved that, subject to Government approval, to withdraw the Writ Appeal filed by SIPCOT against the order dated ____________Page 20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batch29.10.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the batch of writ petitions and to exempt the land comprised in Survey No.83, Egattur village, from acquisition and to get back (i) the compensation amount of Rs.1,17,116/- paid to the land owner Tmt.K.Gnanapriya for 200 sq.mts. of land acquired from her in this field and also (ii) the amount of Rs.1,17,95,992/- deposited in the Sub Court, Kancheepuram and (iii) the amount of Rs.52,46,965/- kept in work deposit. The Baord has authorized the Managing Director to address the Government for issuance of necessary orders in the matter.18. In view of the foregoing, we request the Government to issue necessary orders in the matter. Upon receipt of the Government orders necessary action would be taken to get back (i) the compensation amount of Rs.1,17,116/- paid to the land owner Tmt.K.Gnanapriya for 200 sq.mts. of land acquired from her in this field and also (ii) the amount of Rs.1,17,95,992/ deposited in the Sub Court, Kancheepuram and (iii) the amount of Rs.52,46,965/- kept in work deposit. In this connection, a copy of the agenda note placed before the Board together with the minutes thereon is enclosed.From the above, it is clear that the appellant had made a recommendation to the Government in which they themselves had admitted that notice was not served ____________Page 21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. Batchon the land owners or persons interested.20. In view of the above discussions, the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act is vitiated on the ground of statutory non-compliance, discriminatory treatment given to the writ petitioners, and on the ground that the award passed during the operation of stay order vitiates the entire proceedings. On these grounds, the order passed by the learned single Judge in the batch of writ petitions is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.21. In fine, all the writ appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. [A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] 11.08.2025Index:YesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation:YesAsr____________Page 22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. BatchTo1.The Special Tahsildar SIPCOT, TACID Division Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai2.The Secretary to Government Industries Department, Secretariat Chennai - 600 0093.The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras____________Page 23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. Nos.1887 of 2025 etc. BatchDR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.andN.SENTHILKUMAR.,J.AsrW.A. Nos.1887 of 2022 etc. Batch11.08.2025 ____________Page 24 of 24