Madrasdated High Court · 2008

10. Writ of Certiorarified mandamus Calling for the recordscomprised in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated __.8.2007in R.C.NO.3/07 and quash the same and consequently forbear therespondents from in any manner interfering with the possession andenjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the lands in SurveyNos.162/12, 162/13, 162/14, 162/17, 162/18, 162/19 & 162/20situated in No.134 Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur ChingleputDistrict without finally adjudicating the claims of the petitionerwhich are admittedly pending before the Special District RevenueOfficer Land Acquisition Sipcot as communicated by the 2ndrespondent in Na.Ka.No.71822/2005-F5 dated 13.8.2007 (inW.P.No.32290/07)For Petitioners in W.P.No.16922/07: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Ayyadurai.W.P.No. 29294/07 :M/s. C. RavichandranW.P.Nos.29090, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255, 30256 : M/s. S.D.S. PhilipW.P.No.29113, 33294 : Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy Sr. Counsel for Mr.R. KarunagaranW.P.No.30062/07 : Mr.C. Ravichandran for R.GandhimathiW.P.No.32290/07 : M/s. P. SeshadriW.P.No.29575/07 : NAFor Respondents in W.P.No.16922/07: Mr.G.Masilamani, Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.M.Devaraj for R2 and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, GA for R1,R3 to R5C O M M O N O R D E R In all these cases the common issue involved relates to thechallenge of G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated03.11.2006 and the consequential acquisition proceedings initiatedin terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Landfor Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999) andconsequently to forbear the respondents from proceeding with theland acquisition pursuant to the G.O. in respect of the respectivelands of the petitioners. In some of the cases declaration underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has been passed andpublished in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. In all these cases, the respective petitioners are owningapproved housing plots, running shops, running small industriesetc, in respect of various portions of the land situated inOragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chingleput District. As itis stated in some of the cases, enquiry notice issued underSection 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 have been challenged andin some other cases G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Departmentdated 03.11.2006, granting administrative sanction for requisitionof land for the State Industries Promotion Corporation of TamilNadu (for short SIPCOT) expansion have been challenged.3. The case of the petitioners is that they are middle classpeople either owning house sites or sites in which they are runningvarious shops which are the only source of livelihood and theGovernment has issued administrative sanction order to acquire antotal extent of 395.87.5 hectares of land in Oragadam andSennakuppam villages respectively. 4. The Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has come into force with effectfrom 21.09.2001. The State Government has announced industrialpolicy of Special Economic Zone in the year 2003 to generateadditional economic activity, promote exports of goods and servicesand to promote investment from domestic and foreign sources tocreate employment opportunities and develop infrastructurefacilities. 5. The Government of India has passed Special Economic ZoneAct 2005 (Central Act 28/2005) which was assented by the Presidenton 23.06.2005, with an object to provide for establishment,development and management of Special Economic Zones for thepromotion of exports and for matters connected therewith. The saidAct provides for setting up of Special Economic Zones by StateGovernments or its Agencies such as SIPCOT. It was pursuant to thesaid power, the State Government has passed the Tamil Nadu SpecialEconomic Zones (Special Provision) Act 2005, which came into effectfrom 08.08.2005. Under the provisions of the said Act, the StateGovernment is empowered to acquire lands for establishment ofSpecial Economic Zones by exercising power under Tamil NaduAcquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act (Tamil Nadu Act10/1999). Therefore, according to the petitioners, the StateGovernment while establishing Special Economic Zones for providinginfrastructural facilities for the industries must obtain theapproval of the Board or Central Government under the Central Act28/2005. 6. The SIPCOT is a State owned institution established in theyear 1972 for identifying, developing, maintaining industrial areasin the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, it is the Agency of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Government within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the CentralAct 28/2005. The acquisition in these cases are stated to beinitiated on the basis of request of SIPCOT for expansion of SIPCOTOragadam Industrial Complex. It is the case of the petitionersthat the respondents in order to meet requirements of some MultiNational Companies which requested lands for locating theirindustrial units and accordingly as per its direction, SIPCOT hasidentified the lands situated at Oragadam. It is the case of thepetitioners that neither in the G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006, inwhich administrative sanction has been granted for acquisition norin the counter affidavit it is disclosed that the lands in thepresent case are identified under the Central Act 28/2005 or underthe Tamil Nadu Act 18/2005 dealing with Special Economic Zones.Nothing is stated about the approval of Board as required under theCentral Act 28/2005 and therefore the initiation of acquisitionproceedings under G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006 is without anyauthority and void ab initio. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Governmenthas already acquired an extent of 636.88.0 hectares (1573.09.36acres) by invoking urgency clause of Section 17(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 in and around Oragadam and eight othervillages in the year 1997 for setting up SIPCOT Industrial Complex.Out of the said extent of 1575 acres sanctioned for acquisition inthe year 1997, only 1507.34 acres were acquired and more than 70acres of land have not been acquired despite sanction granted underG.O.Ms.No.125, Industries Department, dated 09.05.1997. It is thecase of the petitioners that if the balance 70 acres of landcovered under the earlier administrative sanction underG.O.Ms.No.125, dated 09.05.1997, were acquired, the lands of thepetitioners would not have been required for the present purpose.There is no need for acquiring the lands of the petitioners. 8. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram in December 2005 conducted local enquirypreceded by the public notices and it is insisted that theacquisition itself is to enable unjust enrichment of some realestate business people and the District Collector, Kancheepuram inhis report dated 22.06.2006, has given his recommendation based onwhich administrative sanction has been granted in G.O.Ms.No.139,dated 03.11.2006, to acquire 395.87.0 hectares of lands. Accordingto the petitioners administrative sanction itself was issuedsubject to the objection of the local people to consider therelevant factors at the time of enquiry after notices under Section3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 are issued. The Notices underSection 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 in Form 'A' were signedby the Special Thasildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial ComplexExpansion at Sriperumbudur, who has been made as one of therespondents in these writ petitions. While admitting some of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions viz., 3112/07, 4953/07, 4954/07 etc. interim ordershave been passed stating that acquisition will be subject to theresult of the writ petitions and ultimately, those writ petitionswere withdrawn. 9. During April 2007, the requisition body viz., SIPCOT hasoffered compensation at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. It isalso admitted that many of the owners after announcement ofcompensation have either withdrawn the writ petitions or notchallenged the acquisition proceedings. The present writ petitionsare filed on the basis of violation of Articles 47, 51A(g) of theConstitution of India. It is also the case of the petitioners thatenquiry conducted under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999is a farce and the remarks of the requisitioning body on theobjections of the land owners were not furnished as required underRule 6 of the Rules framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. Some ofthe petitioners have submitted their objections within the timestipulated in the public notice issued in Form-B and after issuanceof Form-A to individuals. 10. The main crux of the objections are that house sites havebeen approved by the authorities and acquisition of such housesites will defeat the very purpose of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, whenalternative suitable dry lands are available and thereforeacquiring house sites violates Article 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India. Subjective satisfaction of the authority isvitiated by ulterior motive and shown favouritism. Exclusion ofnearly 70 acres sanctioned in the year 1979 in S.Nos.58 and 50 atOragadam Village and proceedings with the present acquisitionamounts to authorities misusing the powers. Notice in Form-A wasgiven by an incompetent officer and therefore it violates theprovisions of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. No locality publication hasbeen made as per Rule 4 and that there has been mis-description ofproperty.11. In some of the cases like W.P.No.16922 of 2007, theDistrict Collector, on receipt of such objections from the owners,has issued communications dated 01.03.1997 and 15.03.1997 to thelearned counsel for the petitioners stating that the objectionswere forwarded to the requisition body viz., SIPCOT calling for theremarks and the petitioners have not received the remarks. Whileso, the enquiry notice was served, posting enquiry on 20.03.2007and 26.03.2007 and on the dates of the said enquiry, hundreds ofowners and some along with their counsels have participated in theenquiry in the Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram andthere was no enquiry conducted and all the objectors were asked toassemble in the meeting hall and there was a speech given by theDistrict Collector quoting the price of the land and those who werewilling were directed to fill up the cyclostyle form and signature https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the owners have been obtained. Immediately, the counsels havesubmitted memo stating that enquiry has not been conducted.Therefore, some of the owners have also requested the StateGovernment to change the District Collector on the score that theacquisition proceedings has been done with bias. There was a newsitem in 'Thinathanthi' newspaper on 21.04.2007, stating that therespondents are willing to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs per ground in respectof the land situated near the road and Rs.2 lakhs fixed for otherapproved house sites, directing the owners to establish theirownership on or before 07.05.2007, stating that on execution ofSale Deed, amount will be paid and that was in the form of privatenegotiations. Therefore, according to the petitioners, issuance ofsuch notice amounts to pre-determining the issue. That apart,notice issued under Section 3(2) is without jurisdictioncontravening the requirements of law.12. The acquisition proceedings are challenged on variousgrounds including that as per the Central Act viz., SpecialEconomic Zones Act 2005 (Central Act 28/2005) and the Tamil NaduAct 18/2005, the acquisition relating to those lands are not inconformity with the said Acts and therefore the acquisition is bad.The administrative sanction issued under the impugnedG.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006, is opposed to the constitutionalscheme provided for maintenance of eco-environmental system andsuffers from vires of non-application of mind, want of good faith,arbitrary exercise of power etc., The Form-A notice issued underSection 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 read with Rule 3 of TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Rules, 2001 iswithout jurisdiction and the same has been signed by the SpecialTahsildar (LA), Oragadam Expansion Project, since it requires theDistrict Collector to sign. The notice issued under Section 3(2)is invalid and in violation of Sections 15 and 25 of the Tamil NaduAct 10/1999, which contemplates the rule making power of theGovernment with regard to authentication of orders and otherinstructions of the District Collector and the manner of issuanceof public notice.13. The SIPCOT, being a requisitioning body cannot act as anacquiring authority. When there is no enquiry pursuant to noticeunder Section 3(2) of the Act and when there was no notification interms of Section 2(c), the conduct of the respondents in acquiringthe land which is used for small industrial purpose to be given toMulti National Companies and thereby permitting the privatecompanies to occupy, is not permissible in law.14. The subjective satisfaction has not been properly used.That the respondents have not acquired 70 acres of land which wasalready sanctioned in 1997 and depriving the petitioners right tolive in the approved house sites violates Article 14 and 21 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution of India. No proper notice has been served to theowners or other subsequent purchasers or original owners. Thatthere is no notification declaring the area as “industrial area”and the enquiry stated to have been conducted is a farce.15. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu(SIPCOT) and the Special Tahsildar(LA), SIPCOT Oragadam IndustrialExpansion Scheme have filed counter affidavit. 16. It is the case of the Special Tahsildar (LA) that theGovernment issued administrative sanction by G.O.Ms.No.139,Industries MID-2 Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire an extentof 360.97.5 hectares of patta lands and 34.90.0 hectares ofGovernment poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages atSriperumbudur under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999for expansion of the Oragadam Industrial Complex by SIPCOT. It waspursuant to the said administrative sanction order of theGovernment, land acquisition proceedings under the Tami Nadu Act10/1999 have been initiated. In that respect all lands inS.No.190/5 measuring an extent of 10,050 sqmt, stands in the nameof Thiru. Jayaraman to whom notice was served under Section 3(2)and there was no response and in respect of lands covered under thesaid Survey numbers, there was no owners response, in spite ofpublic notice. It is also stated that in spite of the fact thatrevenue accounts standing in the name of the original owner, theLand Acquisition Authority have collected particulars from theSub-Registrar's Office and on subsequent verification included thenames of subsequent purchasers in the notification under Section 3(1) and public notice was published on 02.02.2007 as per Section 3(2) of the Act. When objections were received from the owners, theywere sent to the requisitioning body namely the SIPCOT and theiropinion has been obtained and after receiving the said opinion,enquiry was conducted in the District Collector's Office on20.03.2007 and 26.03.2007. By G.O.Ms.No.102, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 16.04.2007, the Government has approvedfixing of land value for various categories of lands fixing theamount of Rs.2,50,000/- per ground etc., and specific notices weresent to the owners asking for their willingness and no one of theowners were compelled to accept the amount. After considering theobjections received from the land owners and also the remarksoffered by SIPCOT, Special Tahsildar (LA) has sent the proposalunder Section 3(1) of the Act to the Government. The Governmenthave approved the proposal and issued Government Order by way ofnotification under Section 3(1) published in Government Gazette on04.07.2007. The fixation of price by negotiation was passed by theState Level Committee and option was given to the owners andtherefore there was no pre-determined intention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. It is the case of the Special Thasildar (LA) thatnotification under Section 3(1) was issued strictly as per TamilNadu Act 10/1999 and the administrative sanction issued under theGovernment order is not in violation of the Constitutionalprovisions and that the entire proceedings were made in accordancewith law. It is also stated that about 6000 land owners areinvolved in the land acquisition proceedings and determining of themarket value has nothing to do with the acquisition proceedingsunder Section 3(1) of the Act. It was only to speed up theacquisition process, the value was fixed under negotiation and incases where no agreement was reached, proceedings under Section 7(3) of the said Act will be followed. It is also stated thatacquisition is for larger industrial purpose and the writpetitioners are very few persons who have objected to theacquisition while majority of the land owners have accepted theacquisition and also the compensation amount.18. It is the case of the requisitioning body SIPCOT in thecounter affidavit that the present acquisition is for larger extentof 395.87.5 hectares and in respect of the remaining 70 acresbased on the acquisition proceedings of an earlier proposal is notdropped and an extent of 18.56 acres is in the process ofacquisition. In respect of 22 acres possession could not be takenin view of pending litigation. A smaller extent of 5.97 acres ofadi dravida habitations were deleted during acquisition. It isalso the case of the SIPCOT that the land in question have beenvacant for a very long period and approval was granted during 1987and no construction has been put up. It is also denied that realestate people are influencing the authorities to acquire the lands.It is only the SIPCOT which is playing the major role in theconcept of industrialisation of the State by establishingindustrial complexes / parks / growth centres etc., and therefore6000 acres of land in the Sriperumundur Taluk was considered foracquisition. It is also stated that SIPCOT is establishingindustrial complexes in various places at Gummidipoondi,Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Siruseri and Oragadam which are invery close proximity to Chennai. The industrialization is requiredfor economic development of the State of Tamil Nadu which isconsidered as a preferred destination for large-scale investments,especially for information and technology related industries andautomobile sector and in fact many giant industrial units and MultiNational Companies are locating their industrial units in Chennaiand therefore the situation automatically warrants expansion of theexisting complexes around Chennai, wherever possible. In respectof W.P.No.3112 of 2007 etc batch which were withdrawn and hence thesame were dismissed are not on the basis of offer of Rs.20,00,000/-per acre. Most of the owners have given their willingnessaccepting the amount of compensation offered as per Rule 6 of theRules framed under the Act. No remarks of the requisitioning body https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ need to be sent to the objectors. It is stated that not only thepetitioners but also all interested persons assembled for theenquiry on 20.03.2007 & 26.03.2007 and most of the land owners werewilling to give their lands for the price offered and in respect ofthose persons who objected their objection were received and theywill be dealt with by the competent authority as per law.Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act in respect ofacquisition already issued and objection as well as the remarksfrom the requisitioning body has been considered. It is also thecase of the SIPCOT that the very purpose of the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 is to provide suitable sites for location of industrieswhich is a pre-requisite for quick establishment of industries. Asper Section 3 of the Act any land can be acquired for industrialpurpose and the classification of the land as residential orinstitutional does not prevent such acquisition.19. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel andMr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for some of thepetitioners have submitted that the petitioners have given theirobjections pursuant to the notice issued under Section 3(2) of theAct by elaborately giving various reasons stating that as per theearlier acquisition there were 75 acres of land which are yet to beacquired. It is also stated that in respect of S.Nos.58, 49 and 50Oragadam village objections were called for by Special Tahsildar inOctober 2005 and the Government sanctioned only in respect of fewSurvey numbers leaving other Survey numbers viz., 58 and 50. TheDistrict Collector has referred the objections of the petitionersto SIPCOT for its remarks and such remarks have never beencommunicated to the petitioners. On the date of enquiry, there wasonly a statement made by the District Collector and no individualenquiry was conducted at all. Letters has been given to assertownership and give indemnity. It is their contention that earlierwrit petitions in W.P.Nos.3111 to 3113 of 2007 were permitted to bewithdrawn and mere permission by this Court to proceed with theacquisition proceedings does not mean that the property vest withthe Government and after withdrawal, the present writ petitionswere filed.20. It is their further contention that in the counteraffidavit filed in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3111 to3113 of 2007, the Tahsildar has specifically stated that subsequentto the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act, enquiry wasconducted and the land owners participated in the enquiry andsubmitted their objections and authorities will certainly provideopportunity to the petitioners while issuing the notification underSection 3(1) of the Act. The petitioners can raise theirobjections for not acquiring the land or even request to excludethe lands from the acquisition proceedings with sufficient cause.Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, in spite of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ undertaking given in the earlier counter affidavit, the respondentshave not followed the procedure. Their contention is that as perthe said Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, until the area is declared as anindustrial area or chosen by the Government as industrial estate,the proceedings under the Act cannot be initiated and thereforenotice under Section 3(2) has no jurisdiction. It is theirsubmission that a reading of the objects and reasons of the Actwith reference to Section 22 which gives an overriding effect tothe Act and therefore the enquiry conducted and procedurecontemplated must be scrupulously followed since the Act isdraconian in nature. It is also their case that Form-A issuedunder Rule 3 has been signed by the Special Tahsildar stating thathe has issued the same by order of the Collector, whereas, he hasno jurisdiction to issue the same, since it is the DistrictCollector who is the authority to issue such notice under the Act.It is also their case that the Special District Revenue Officer(LA) has not been authorised by the Government. It is also theirsubmission that in respect of the lands where houses have beenbuilt up on the approved lay out issued by the competent authorityunder the Town and Country Planning Act, treating it as residentialzone and therefore the said lands cannot be acquired for industrialpurpose.21. According to the learned senior counsel, theadministrative sanction order issued under G.O.Ms.No.139, dated03.11.2006 is illegal and without fulfilling the requirements andin violation of the Act. When there are distinction between Form-Aand Form-B, which provides for notice to parties and public noticerespectively while Form-A states that objection should be givenwithin 30 days from the date of public notice by the DistrictCollector, it is not know as to when the public notice will beissued in Form-B and therefore there is ambiguity. 22. Further according to the learned senior counsel SIPCOTbeing the requisitioning authority has no authority to allot tothird parties like Multi National Companies after acquiring fromthe owners. The purpose of acquisition in this case being made togive to private entrepreneurs which cannot be the object of theAct, since the basis must be for public purpose. In as much asmany of the buildings are in residential approved plan unless theyare notified as industrial area under the Town and Country PlanningAct and reclassified, the acquisition is bad. They would also relyupon the judgment reported in State of Punjab Vs. Sanjeet SinghGrewal (III (2007) CLT 132 (SC)) and therefore their submission isthat the administrative sanction is arbitrary since the relevantfacts have not been taken into consideration and it is withoutjurisdiction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. Form-A given under Section 3(2) of the Act is illegal andwithout jurisdiction and the Special Tahsildar is not the authorityto sign by the orders of the District Collector. According to themeven the District Collector is not the authority to initiateacquisition since the Special District Revenue Officer (LA) is theauthority to sent necessary alienation proposal to the Government.The sanction order does not confer any special authority butenables the Special District Revenue Officer to send proposal. Itis also their submission that the impugned sanction order has beenpassed by the Government and the Government has not filed anycounter affidavit with regard to the impugned sanction order andhence the counter affidavit of the other respondents have to beignored. They would rely upon the judgment reported in HindustanPetroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai ((2005) 7 SCC627). The District Collector being a delegatee from theGovernment, cannot further sub-delegate to Special Tahsildar andtherefore, Section 3(2) notice is bad in law.24. Even otherwise there is no power to authenticate any otherofficer other then the District Collector, since under Section 25(2)(b) of the Act, which enables the Government to make rules, norules have been framed and the Special Tahsildar has nojurisdiction with authenticity. They would also rely upon the thejudgment reported in D.C.Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India (AIR 1994SC 1805) to substantiate their contention that Form-A notice issuedunder Section 3(2) of the Act 10/1999 is without jurisdiction.They further relied upon the judgment reported in CompetentAuthority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory ((2005) 13 SCC 477) that whenonce notice under Section 3(2) is held invalid all consequentproceedings are also liable to be set aside. 25. Even in case of non filing of objection by owners a dutyis cast on the respondents to issue enquiry notice and decisioncannot be arrived at ex-parte. They would also rely upon thejudgment reported in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A.P.Damodarasamy((2007) 3 MLJ 189) and contend that notice issued under Section 3(2) is unauthorised. It is their further contention that in asmuch as no valid enquiry being conducted in such expropriatory lawlike that of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, the entire proceedings shouldbe set aside. It is their further contention that the petitionershave given elaborate objections and in fact no reply wascommunicated to the petitioners and thereafter the remarks have notbeen furnished about which a detailed memo has been filed andtherefore it has not followed Rule '6' and report has not beenprovided.26. According to their submissions, power of eminent domaindoes not mean that no valid enquiry need be conducted. It is theircontention that the Government ought to have excluded the house https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sites situated in an extent of 28 acres of total area, especiallyin the impugned administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.139, dated03.11.2006, itself states that 68 acres have not been acquiredin spite of sanction granted in 1999.27. It is also their case that requisition for exemption inthe enquiry was not considered and therefore the respondents havenot acted in a fair and expected manner as per law in respect ofexpropriatory law like that of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. The mannerof enquiry and application of mind and substantial compliance ofevery procedure even in discretionary matter has to be made andCourts have got right of final review. They relied upon thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in HindustanPetroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai ((2005) 7 SCC627), Kewal Chand Mimani (D) by LRs. Vs. S.K.Sen ((2001) 6 SCC512), (2001 WLR 432) and Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab((2008) 1 SCC 728).28. In respect of W.P.No.33294 of 2007 the petitioner ishimself carrying on business of carriers of container abetting themain road and they should have been exempted. It is their furthercontention that the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition Acthave to be in pari-matria apply to Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 also.29. Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.No.29294 of 2007, while adopting the arguments ofthe learned senior counsel Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy would submit thatindustrial purpose under Section 3 means larger extent. It is hiscontention that if industrial purpose is for larger extent, theremust be a scheme or plan of action and the scheme must provide theentire procedure apart from objects etc., He would also submitthat no enquiry was conducted. He relied upon the decision of theFull Bench of this Court reported in Sharp Tools Vs. The State ofTamil Nadu (2006 (4) CTC 785) to substantiate his contention thatauthority must give reasons and he would rely upon the term “afterhearing” in Rule 6, which connotes a full fledged enquiry. Hewould submit that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.177 (Industries) (SIPCOTL.A) dated 04.07.2007, where notice issued under Section 3(1) ofthe Act in the said writ petition is liable to be set aside as theprocedure contemplated under the Act has not been followed and thatthe respondents have pre-determined the acquisition calling forprivate negotiation and that the provisions of Section 7 has beenviolated. It is also his submission that the enquiry is a farce.30. Mr.S.D.S.Phillip, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in W.P.Nos.29090, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255and 30256 of 2007 submitted that the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is anexpropriatory and draconian law and the owner has got only onechance under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act and in as much as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the law is having overriding effect and no Civil Court has got anyjurisdiction to enter into the matter, the procedure contemplatedunder the Act has to be scrupulously followed. He would alsosubmit that on receipt of the Form-A the owners have to giveobjection within 30 days from the date of issuance of Form-B andthat would deprive the right of owners to defend their case. Hewould also submit that as per Rule 4 no notice was issued in thevillage and locality publication has not been made as per Rule 4.He would also submit that the enquiry was only a privatenegotiation and pre-determined in nature. He would alsosubmit that for acquisition for industrial purpose for largerextent there should be a scheme and it must be for a particularproject and that project must be related to public purpose. Evenif it is industrial purpose, that has to be made known and in theabsence of any opinion framed in appropriate manner, according tohim, acquisition proceedings are invalid. It is his case that byreading the object of the Act, vast lands are acquired for MultiNational Companies in under contemplation. Multi NationalCompanies are only interested in private employment and the unitsare likely to vanish in course of time, by which employmentopportunities will be affected, which according to him violatesArticle 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. He would alsosubmit that in as much as some of the areas have been excludedamong the house owners, there is discrimination and it violatesArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. He would also submit thatwhen application under Section 23(A) for exemption is pending withthe Government, the proceedings under the Act ought not have beeninitiated. They were under the impression that when some owners arevoluntarily surrendering on payment of compensation, it is theirlegitimate expectation that remaining lands will be left out. 31. In W.P.No.29090 of 2007, it is his contention that theproperty was purchased by the petitioner on 16.08.2005, and he hasreceived no notice, even though it is the case of the respondentsthat when notice was served, no one was available. Further inSection 3(1) notification his name is not found, therefore hissubmission is that notice under Section 3(2) is mandatory and hewould also submit that exemption has been granted to a Temple, RiceMill, Kalyana Mandapam under S.Nos.454 and 455 and the same hasnot been considered in his case which has a small Church. He wouldalso submit that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1630 Revenuedated 26.09.1984, states that as far as possible temples and allother places of worship should be exempted. His contention isthat if the petitioner being a local residence must know about thepublic notice, there is no meaning for the mandatory issue ofnotice and therefore according to him the entire enquiry is afarce. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. He would submit that in respect of W.P.Nos.29708 to 29710notice was not served to the petitioners in spite of the fact thatthe petitioners have purchased the property. He would submit thatin W.P.No.30019 of 2007 it is a rice mill and other writ petitioneris running a small scale industry in garment and has obtainedapproval as SSI. He would submit that the petitioners inW.P.Nos.30020 and 30021 of 2007 are non-residents, one is residingat Kerala and the other in Hyderabad and there is no possibilityfor them to know when Form-B will be issued. He would rely uponthe judgments reported in (1) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Darius ShapurChenai & Others (2005 (7) SCC 627)(2) Gunasekaran and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu representedby its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal WelfareDepartment, Chennai and others (2005 (2) MLJ 550)(3) A.Doulath Nisha Vs. The District Collector, PasumponMutharamalinga Devar District and others (2006 (1) CTC 738)(4) V.Sarangapani (deceased) and others Vs. Collector ofThanjavur District at Thanjavur and others (2006 (2) MLJ 606)He would also submit that Survey number is given wrongly andproceeding must be held to be vague and he relied upon the Judgmentreported in Om Prakash Sharma and others Vs. M.P.Audyogik KendraVikas Nigam ((2005) 10 SCC 306). He would submit that thepetitioners name stood in the revenue records and no notice wasgiven and it would vitiate the entire proceeding and relied uponthe judgment reported in I.I.S. Employees' House Building Coop.Society Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka ((2005) 12 SCC 483).33. Mr.P.Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.No.32290 of 2007, while adopting the arguments ofthe learned senior counsel, would submit that under Section 3(3)the term “after hearing” connotes private enquiry and thepetitioner has purchased the property in 1989 for the purpose ofrunning industry viz., a catering unit measuring an extent of10,000 sq.ft and is adjacent to the road and that it has to beexempted.34. The other learned counsels appeared for the petitioners inother writ petitions adopted the arguments of the learned seniorcounsel as stated above.35. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Advocate General appearing forthe respondents would submit that out of 17 writ petitions, writpetitioner in W.P.No.29575 of 2007 has accepted the acquisitionproceeding and the counsel has not appeared and argued and hencethe same has to be dismissed as infractuous.36. In respect of 16 writ petitions, he would submit that writpetitioners in W.P.No.33294/07 M/s.Triway Container Freight Station https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Private Limited is a subsequent purchaser. The original owner hasalso been made as the second respondent in the writ petition. Hissubmission is that when the petitioner company itself has purchasedthe property on 07.05.2007, notice under Section 3(2) was issued on20.02.2007 and therefore the purchase is after the acquisitionproceedings have been initiated. It is his contention that thesecond petitioner in the said writ petition Mr.Venkatapathy Naiduhas earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3111 of 2007, which wasdismissed as withdrawn without any specific leave from the Court.The present writ petition in W.P.No.33294 of 2007, according to thelearned Advocate General is liable to be dismissed. It is also hiscase that while in the said writ petition No.33294 of 2007 sevensurvey numbers have been given namely 69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6,71/8A1, 70/1 and 153/7A, in the earlier writ petition inW.P.No.3111 of 2007, he has included all five survey numbers exceptS.Nos.153/3 and 70/1. The said W.P.No.3111 of 2007 was dismissedas withdrawn due to the reason that the petitioner has accepted thecompensation and dismissal was without any leave, to file a freshwrit petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed in respect of the said five survey numbers exceptS.No153/3 and 72/4. Even in respect of the above said two surveynumbers, before filing of earlier W.P.No.3111 of 2007, notice underSection 3(2) have been issued to the original owner namelyMr.Venkatapathy Naidu and after the notice under Section 3(2) wasissued which was on 20.02.2007, previous owner Mr.VenkatapathyNaidu, the second petitioner in W.P.No.33294/07, has sold theproperty to the petitioner company on 07.05.2007 and therefore thewrit petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands andin respect of the said five survey numbers they are hit by Resjudicata and the other two survey numbers are covered byconstructive Res judicata and therefore, according to the learnedAdvocate General, W.P.No.33294/07 is not maintainable. The saidsecond petitioner Mr.Venkatapathy Naidu has also accepted thecompensation offered by the respondents and hence the firstpetitioner was not served. 37. The learned Advocate General while referring to the scopeof the Act 10/1999 would submit that the basis of acquisition underthe Act is for industrial purpose as defined under Section 2(e)which is not only inclusive but also contains various components.According to him by virtue of the word 'industrial purpose' underSection 2(e) and 'land' under Section 2(f), the scope of the Acthas been narrowed down especially in the circumstances that Section3(1) of the Act uses only the words 'industrial purpose'. The wordwhich are not found in Section 3(1) of the Act cannot be importedfrom any other Act because the object of the Act is only todevelopment of industrial purpose and therefore, the meaningelsewhere in the Central Land Acquisition Act either for public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purpose or any other purpose cannot be brought within the ambit ofTamil Nadu Act 10/1999. His submission is that the Statement ofObjects makes it very clear that it is for speedy industrial growthof the State. 38. His further submission is that what is contemplated underSection 3(2) of the Act is only a show cause notice and in theabsence of any procedure to be followed for the purpose of suchnotice under Section 3(2) of the Act, either for issuance of a showcause notice to individual owner or public notice either underForm-A or Form-B, the Government is empowered to delegate itspowers under Section 3(2). He would submit that pursuant to thepower given under Section 23(A)(1) of the Act, the Government byG.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI 1) dated 02.09.2005, has delegated itspowers to the Collector of the District concerned. As far as thepublic notice to be given under Section 3(2), Section 15 prescribesthe method, the term “officer concerned” under Section 15 is theCollector and all public notice have been issued in this case underthe signature of the District Collector. As far as the show causenotice, the owner or any person interested to whom notice in Form-Ahas to be issued. Since 6,500 owners have to be issued with suchshow cause notice, the District Collector has signed in the firstand the last page in the originals and thereafter the Tahsildarunder the orders of the District Collector has signed the showcause notice and sent the same to the individual owners whichaccording to the learned Advocate General would amount tosubstantial compliance of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Act.He would submit that the word “shall” used in Section 3(2) of theAct is for the purpose of giving opportunity to the owners and notfor the purpose of signature of the Collector or any other person.He would submit that when the Government have called upon anyperson interested, it is not the Government which signs but anyother authority and therefore the concept of Section 3(2) beingpart of principles of Natural Justice, signing of show causenotice to the owners by the Tahsildar under directions from theCollector does not vitiate the proceedings, since the signature isby an order of the Collector and the original has been signed bythe District Collector. 39. In respect of show cause notice issued to the parties,there are cases where persons have received and cases where personswho have not received. It is his submission that in respect ofpersons who have received show cause notice under Section 3(2) ofthe Act in Form-A, none of the recipients have rejected the noticeas bad in law. According to him, issuance of such a notice is nota fundamental right or human right and it is not inalienable.Notices having been signed by the Tahsildar, there is no violationof public policy especially in the circumstances that notice signedby the Tahsildar have been received by the owners without any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ objection. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate General,any infraction of procedure cannot make the acquisition invalid.40. In respect of the persons who have not received notice,they cannot question the validity of the notice. It is hiscontention that the procedure of giving notice being a beneficialprovision, by signing in the said notice by the Tahsildar noprejudice or injustice has been caused on account of the same. Itis not as if by Tahsildar signing the said Form-A notice under theorders from the District Collector, owners are unable to give theirexplanation. He would submit that considering the totality of thesituation, the purpose of acquisition for industrial purpose whichis in public interest and therefore the procedural infirmity whichare not prejudicial to the owners cannot stand in the way ofacquisition proceedings and on that basis the acquisitionproceedings cannot be struck down.41. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners regarding G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department,dated 03.11.2006, that as per the said G.O. itself the personauthorised is not the District Collector but Special DistrictRevenue Officer (LA), submission of the learned Advocate General isthat the said G.O. is administrative in nature. By that G.O. noacquisition is made, it is only an administrative sanction whichhas been given before the starting of acquisition proceedings andit can only be treated as a preliminary report. The SpecialDistrict Revenue Officer (LA) has given a proposal for acquisition.Therefore, according to him G.O.Ms.No.139 is not intended tosubstitute the District Collector or the Government under Section3(2) of the Act. The intention of the G.O. is not to take away thestatutory powers of the District Collector under Section 3(2) and23(A) of the Act. Therefore, the Special District Revenue Officer(LA) was not performing powers of acquisition under any statutoryprovisions. 42. To substantiate his contention that provisions of theCentral Act 1/1894 cannot be imported under the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999, he would rely upon Section 21 which specifically statesthat Land Acquisition Act does not apply to Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999.After the present Act of 10/1999, acquisition in respect of theproperty under the said Act within the State of Tamil Nadu has tobe restricted only under the State Act and in so far as the Stateof Tamil Nadu is concerned, the Central Act is not applicable inthat regard. He would also submit that Section 21 read withSection 22 gives an overriding effect to any other law. Eventhough Section 22 gives overriding effect to Act 10/1999 from anyother law, Section 21 need not be there, but still the law makershave included it as a matter of abundant caution. To insist thatany Central Act or any procedure contemplated under the Central https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, can be brought within the preview of the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999, will be against the terms of the Act. He would submitthat the right to property not being a fundamental right, there isno question of Natural Justice coming in and the opportunity whichis required in respect of acquisition should be only as per theextent given under Act 10/1999 and in as much as such procedureunder the Act has been followed, the acquisition proceedings willnot be affected. He would submit that merely because the rulesframed under the Central Land Acquisition Act is in pari martia,same as rule under Act 10/1999, it does not mean that the rulesunder the State Act must have the same meaning, which has to beconstrued only in accordance with Act 10/1999, especially when therule making power is only a subordinate legislation. He wouldsubmit that rules were framed in 2001, in G.O.No.366, RevenueDepartment, dated 21.09.2001. Rule 3 speaks about the show causenotice to the owners in Form-A and public notice in Form-B asrequired under Section 3(2) of the Act. In respect of both noticesand as far as larger extent is concerned, it is stated that noticeshall be published at common places in the locality and copiesfixed in the office of Collector and Tahsildar. In the presentcase, according to the learned Advocate General, notices werepublished in seven places. He would submit that as per Rules theterm 'hearing' and 'objections' cannot be equated to the enquirycontemplated under Rule 5(A) of the Central Act. He would alsostate that under Rule 6(b) there is a provision which states thatin cases where owners do not object, no enquiry is necessary. Inthe absence of any provision in the State Act that the Central Actshould be followed in respect of conducting enquiry there is noscope to apply the Central Act. He further submitted that as perthe Rules under the Act 10/1999, there is no mandate that copies ofthe answers given by the requisitioning body be sent to the owners.In the absence of any mandatory provision under the ruleswarranting copies of the remarks be submitted to the objectors andthereafter fix further date of enquiry, it cannot be said that theowners are entitled for copies of the remarks. He would submitthat Rule 5(A) of the Central Act, 1894 relates to theopportunities of being heard. Section 3(2) of Act 10/1999 onlyrelates to show cause notice and therefore it is totally differentfrom Section 5(A) enquiry. 43. The term 'hearing' under Rule 6, according to the learnedAdvocate General has to be inconsonance with Section 3(2) of theAct 10/1999 and there need not be any elaborate enquiry. He wouldsubmit that indications in Form-A notice that objections can befiled within 30 days from the date of Form-B notice, does not causeany prejudice to land owners at all. There is no impediment forthe land owners to file objection within 30 days from the date ofservice of Form-A notice itself, since Form 'B' has to benecessarily be published after Form-A notice. Even though in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of issue of notice in Form-B, Section 15 prescribes aprocedure, there is no procedure prescribed as far as Form-A isconcerned since it is only a show cause notice. He would alsosubmit that no one of the petitioners have challenged Form-A orForm-B notices. 44. As far as the objections of the petitioners that the Actmust be construed based on a scheme for industrial purpose, it ishis contention that Act does not visualise the allotment of landsince the acquisition has to be tested based on the provision ofthe Act, which must be for industrial purpose. Merely because someof the petitioners have purchased approved plots as housing sites,the same is not a bar for acquisition. He would submit that if itis the petitioners view that lands acquired are not going to beused for industrial purpose but for some other purpose not requiredunder the Act, it is for the petitioners to workout their remediesespecially after the introduction of Right to Information Act. Thelearned Advocate General has also produced the map prepared bySIPCOT which shows the total extent of land acquired and how thelands of the 17 petitioners are situated here and there in smallpatches and therefore, he would submit that in the interest of thelarger industrial development, any such cases of individual rightshave to be given up. As far as the plea of exemption of variouslands are concerned, it is the submission of the learned AdvocateGeneral that whether a particular land is required or not it is forthe the Government to decide.45. As far as the writ petitioner company in W.P.No.33294 of2007 is concerned, apart from his submission that the writ petitionis not maintainable, mere operating a carrier unit does not meanthat they should be given exemption. After acquisition process isover, it is always open to such petitioner to make properrepresentation to SIPCOT which may allot any place, if it issatisfied that the petitioner require space for industrial purpose.His submission is that it is open to any private entrepreneur toapproach SIPCOT for the purpose of allotment of land. He has alsomade his submission in respect of individual cases.46. His further submission is that show cause notice underSection 3(2) has been sent to persons whose names found place inthe revenue records and as far as W.P.No.33292 of 2007 isconcerned, he being a subsequent purchaser and after initiation ofproceedings under Section 3(2) of the Act, he is not entitled fornotice and non-issuance of notice does not affect the acquisitionproceedings. 47. The learned Advocate General concluded his arguments bystating that out of 6500 persons whose lands have been acquiredonly 17 persons are before this Court and that too among them one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ person has accepted the land acquisition proceedings and only 16persons are before this Court now. The learned Advocate General hasalso produced the entire files relating to individual cases.48. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners by wayof reply have insisted that industry means only public purpose andConstitutional right under Article 300(A) if it is violated, suchaffected party has got right to approach the Court especially whenthe Act is expropriatary in nature and the learned counsels wouldrely upon the judgment reported in 2008 (1) SCC 728. The othersubmission is that industry means it must be Government related andnot private enterprises. It is their further submission that ifland acquisition is for a larger extent, there must be a scheme.They also reiterated that enquiry contemplated is mandatory innature and purport of the Central Act in so far as it relates topublic interest has to be imported into the provisions of TamilNadu Act 10/1999 and insisted that the provisions under Rule 6 havenot been followed. They would also submit that as far asauthenticity under Section 25(2)(b) is concerned, the Governmenthas to make rules and in the absence of such rules there is noquestion of authenticity of District Collector's proceedings.49. I have heard the learned senior counsel and othercounsels appearing for the respective petitioners and the LearnedAdvocate General and perused the relevant records. Beforeadverting to various contentions raised in respect of the landacquisition proceedings in question, it is relevant to refer tosome of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forIndustrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999). Originallythe matter relating to acquisition and requisitioning of propertywas incorporated as Entry No.33 of List I-(Union List) of theSeventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and it wassubsequently omitted from List-I by Constitution (SeventhAmendment) Act, 1956, by which the matter relating to the saidacquisition and requisitioning of property was made in List III –(Concurrent List) as Entry No.42. By virtue of Article 254 of theConstitution of India, in respect of the matters enumerated in theConcurrent List, the law made by the Parliament whether passedbefore or after the law made by the State Legislature of any Stateshall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State tothat extent of repugnancy, would be void. Likewise in respect ofthe matters in Concurrent List when the Legislature of the Statemakes law and if such law is repugnance to the provisions of theearlier law made by the parliament with respect of the said matter,the State law would prevail in that State, if such law has beenreserved for the consideration of the President and such accent hasbeen received. It is true in respect of the matters in theConcurrent List the Parliament will have a right of enacting law atany time in respect of the same matter wherein the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Legislature has made law either by adding to, amending, varying orrepealing the same. Since the matter relating to acquisition andrequisitioning has been brought under the Concurrent List as EntryNo.42, both the Parliament as well as the State Legislature havesimultaneous powers to make law. 50. At the time when the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forIndustrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as TamilNadu Act 10/1999), was enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislature, therewas in existence a Central law made by Parliament viz., LandAcquisition Act, 1894. The Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, having beenenacted by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature and received the assentof the President of India has come into force on 21.09.2001 as perG.O.Ms.No.365, Revenue, (LAI(1)), dated 21.09.2001. By virtue ofArticle 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 would prevail in the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of thelegislative competency of the State Government.51. As per the statement of objects and reasons leading to thepassing of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 it enshrines for the speedyindustrial growth of the State and felt that lands for industrialpurposes have to be acquired speedily so as to achieve the object,since the provision of suitable site of locality of industries is apre-requisite for quick establishment of industries. It was withthat intention, the Government has made the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999to provide special provisions for speedy acquisition of lands forindustrial purpose by enacting the special legislation.52. On the other hand the basic object of Land Acquisition Act1894 (Central Act 1/1894) is to provide law for the acquisition ofland needed for public purpose and for companies and fordetermining the amount of compensation to be made on account ofsuch acquisition. Therefore, the object of the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 is distinct from the object of the Central Act 1/1894 inthe sense that the basis for passing Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is toprovide speedy acquisition of land for industrial purposes in theState of Tamil Nadu.53. The term “industrial purpose” which is the core of theTamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is defined under Section 2(e), is asfollows:“Section 2(e) “Industrial purpose" includes thestarting of a new industry, expansion of an existingindustry, the development of an industrial area andestablishment and management of an industrial estate.” It denotes not only what an industrial purpose is, but it is aninclusive definition which comes under broadly four categories viz.(i) starting of a new industry, (ii)expansion of an existing industry, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)the development of an industrial area and (iv)establishment and management of an industrial estate.Therefore, the term “industrial purpose” for which the law isenacted can come under any one of the above said four categoriesapart from any other industrial purpose which may not come underthe above said four categories. Out of the above said fournarrated industrial purpose, in respect of “development ofindustrial area”, it is no doubt necessary that the Government hasto declare by notification the said area to be an industrial area.The term “industrial area” is defined under Section 2(c) which isas follows:“Section 2(c), 'Industrial area' means any areadeclared by the Government, by notification, to be anindustrial area” Likewise, the industrial purpose relating to establishment andmanagement of “industrial estate” means an area selected by theGovernment, wherein the Government builds factories and connectedbuildings and make them available for any industries as it isdefined under Section 2(d) which is as follows:“Section 2(d), "Industrial estate" means any siteselected by Government, where the Government buildsfactories and other buildings and makes them availablefor any industry;”Therefore, for the purpose of establishment and management ofindustrial estate, the Government has to select the place, builtfactories and make them available for any industry which can begive to private entrepreneurs also. However, in respect of theindustrial purpose of starting a new industry or expansion of anexisting industry there is no necessity for the Government to havea declaration to that effect or for the Government to choose theplace for making it as an industrial estate. 54. On the face of definition clause, it is clear that forthe purpose of starting new industries or expansion of existingindustries it is not necessary for the Government to declare or tobuild factories by itself. 55. Section 3 of the Act deals with the power to acquire landwhich 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, theymay 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), the Government shall, call upon the owner and anyother person, who in the opinion of the Government may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interested in such land, to show cause within such timeas may be specified in the notice, why the land shouldnot be acquired. The Government shall also cause a publicnotice to 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, ifany, shown by the owner or person interested.” Section 3(1) postulates that if in the opinion of the Governmentany land is required for any industrial purpose or any otherpurpose, which is as per the main object of the Act, a publicationcould be effected specifying the particular purpose for which suchland is required. Therefore, on a reading of Section 3(1) alongwith the definitions as stated above, it is clear that if theGovernment in its opinion requires any land for industrial purposefor starting new industry or expansion of existing industries,there is no need for the Government to actively involves itself bydeclaration as Industrial Area or Industrial Estate and the purposeof such acquisition for starting a new industry or expansion ofexisting industry can also be for the purpose of giving to privateentrepreneurs. It is in this way two of the components forindustrial purpose viz., development of industrial area andestablishment and management of industrial estate are totallydifferent from starting of a new industry or expansion of existingindustry. Therefore, as long as the lands are required forindustrial purpose in the opinion of the Government, it isimmaterial as to whether the Government itself does variousactivities for the promotion of industrial development or give toindividual entrepreneurs for industrial development as long as thesame comes under the term industrial purpose of starting of newindustry or expansion of existing industry. Therefore, the elementof public purpose as it is understandable under the Central Act1/1894 may not have strict application in respect of the Tamil NaduAct 10 of 1999. However, it is true that the consequence ofindustrial purpose is to develop industrial growth in the State ofTamil Nadu which will ultimately be helpful to the public at large.56. Again, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999,the Government has a duty to call upon the owners or any otherperson in the opinion of the Government has interest in the saidlands to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. Inaddition to the above said show cause notice, which is given to theowner or any other person interested in the land as per the opinionof the Government, the Government shall also cause a public noticein the manner prescribed.57. Thus Section 3(2) relates to giving of opportunities tothe owners or persons interested and hearing them before passingnotification under Section 3(1) of the Act. In respect of the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ two facets of Section 3(2) viz., issue of show cause notice to theowners and persons interested and public notice, Rule (3) and (4)of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition of Land for Industrial PurposeRules, 2001 which came into force on 21.09.2001, states as follows:“Rule 3: Issue of show cause notice by theGovernment – The show cause notice specified in sub-section (2) of section 3 shall be in Form-A. Rule 4: Publication of public notice – TheGovernment shall cause a public notice of the substanceof the show cause notice issued under sub-section (2) ofsection 3 in Form-B. The notice shall be published atconvenient places in the locality and copies thereoffixed up in the offices, of the Collector and theTahsildar.”Therefore, Form-A prescribed under Rule(3) has to be served on theowner or person interested and it is in the form of show causenotice. The contents of Form-A is as follows:“Form-A(See rule 3)SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OFSECTION 3 OF THE TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT, 1997(TAMIL NADU ACT 10 OF 1999)Whereas it appears to the Government of Tamil Naduthat the land/lands specified in the Schedule below andsituated inthe.......................village...........taluk................District is/are needed for an industrial purposeto wit for.................................Notice to thateffect is hereby given to all whom it may concern inaccordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) ofsection 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forIndustrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999)to show cause within thirty days from the date of givingpublic notice why the land/lands should not be acquired.”Thus Form-A, makes it clear that owner is directed to show cause asto why the land should not be acquired within 30 days from the dateon giving public notice.58. The term public notice mentioned in Form-A drafted as perRule 3, connotes Form -B drafted as per Rule 4 of the Rules. While https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Form-A is to be served on the individual owners or personsinterested in the opinion of the Government, Form-B is to bepublished at convenient places in the locality by fixing a copy ofForm-B in the offices of the Collector and the Tahsildar. Form-B,states that all persons interested are to lodge before theconcerned department within 30 days from the date of publication ofnotice a statement in writing and their objection, if any, to theacquisition of the said lands.59. Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 provides themanner by which public notice is to be made in Form 'B', which isas follows:“Section 15:- Public notices how to be made known-Every public notice given under this Act or any rule madethereunder shall be in writing over the signature of theofficer concerned and shall be widely made known in thelocality to be affected, thereby affixing copies thereofin conspicuous public places, within the said locality,or by publishing the same by beat of drum or byadvertisement in a local newspaper, or by any two or moreof these means, and by any other means that the officermay think fit.”Therefore, it is made clear that a public notice in writing withthe signature of the officer concerned be made widely known in thelocality by affixing in the conspicuous public places or publishingthe same by beat of drum or by advertisement in a local newspaper,etc., It is significant to note that as far as issuance of showcause notice to the owner or person interested in the opinion ofthe Government, neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any methodto be followed, which means that if such show cause notice is sentto the owner or persons interested in any acceptable form, the sameis certainly a proper method of service. Even in this way serviceof show cause notice and public notice, under Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 is totally different from Section 4(1) of the Central Act1/1894 which contemplates the notification to be published in theOfficial Gazette stating that it appears to the appropriateGovernment that such land in the locality is needed for publicpurpose in addition to that, it is the duty of the Government topublish the same in two daily newspapers circulating in thatlocality of which at least one should be in regional language. Inaddition to that, it is the duty of the District Collector to causepublic notice of substance of such notification at convenientplaces in the said locality. Such stringent provisions is notavailable either under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 orunder Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules framed thereunder.60. Now coming to the third aspect of the power to acquireland which is dealt with under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999, it enables the Government to pass notification under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 3(1) and after hearing and considering the cause, if any,shown by the owner or person interested. The term “hearing” ascontemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act cannot be equated to theterm “hearing of objections” under Section 5-A of the Central Act1/1894. Section 5-A(2) states as follows:“Section 5-A. Hearing of Objections:(1).....(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall bemade to the Collector in writing, and the collectorshall give the objector an opportunity of being heard inperson or by any person authorised by him in this behalfor by pleader and shall, after hearing all suchobjections and after making such further enquiry, ifany, as he thinks necessary, either make a report inrespect of the land which has been notified undersection 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports inrespect of different parcels of such land, to theappropriate Government, containing his recommendationson the objections, together with the record of theproceedings held by him, for the decision of thatGovernment. The decision of the appropriate Governmenton the objections shall be final.”Thus Section 5-A(2) mandates the District Collector to giveopportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader etc., andafter hearing all objections and making such further enquiry as theDistrict Collector deems fit. In the absence of any such stringentprovision as it is seen in the Central Act 1/1894 especially underSection 5-A(2), in the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, there is nodifficulty in coming to the conclusion that the intention of thelaw makers in respect of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 while taking intoconsideration the basic object of enacting such law, is not to havean enquiry of the sort provided for under the Central Act 1/1894,but passing orders after hearing and considering the objections. 61. It is true as contented by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the petitioners that Rule 4 of theLand Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed by the Government ofTamil Nadu in accordance with the power under Section 55(1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1/1894) which is asfollows:“Rule 4 – (a) If a statement of objections is filedby a person who is not interested in the land, it shallbe summarily rejected.(b) If any objections are received from a personinterested in the land and within the time prescribed insub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a date for hearing the objections and give noticethereof in Form 'B' to the objector as well as to thedepartment or company requiring the land. Copies of theobjections shall also be forwarded to such department orcompany. The department or company may file on or beforethe date fixed by the Collector, a statement by way ofanswer to the objections and may also depute arepresentative to attend the enquiry.(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other dateto which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector,the Collector shall hear the objector, or a personauthorised by 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.”is in pari materia the same as Rule 6 of the Rules framed by theState Government under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 which reads asfollows:“Rule 6 : Hearing of objections by the Government –(a) If a statement of objections is filed by aperson who 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 for hearingthe objections and give notice thereof to the objector oras well as to the department or company requiring theland. Copies of the objections shall also be forwardedto such department or company. The Department or companymay file on or before the date fixed by the Government, astatement by way of answer to the objections and may alsodepute a representative to attend the enquiry.(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other dateto which 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 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.”But the said Rule 6 framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has to beconstrued only in the context of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 taking intoconsideration the basic Object of the Act and it cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ construed based on the object of the Central Act 1/1894.Therefore, the hearing of objections by owners or personsinterested under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is to give opportunityto the owners and not for conducting an elaborate enquiry whichcertainly would not enable the Government for speedy acquisition ofland for industrial purposes. Nevertheless, following of the basicprinciples of natural justice is to be read as forming part of anystatute, of course, including Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 which cannever be dispensed with but the nature of hearing contemplatedunder Act 10/1999 is different from the nature of enquirycontemplated under Section 5-A of the Central Act 1/1894 and theRule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed thereunder. Again areference to Section 5-A(2) of the Central Act 1/1894 specificallymandates the District Collector to give the objectors anopportunity of being heard, while such stringent provisions is notavailable under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, even though the Rulesframed under the said Act especially Rule 6, in pari materia issame as that of Rule 4 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government underCentral Act 1/1894. 62. As far as forwarding of objections of land owners to therequisitioning authority and obtaining answers to the objections,there is no provision under the Act or Rules mandating theGovernment to forward copies of such answers to the objectionsbefore the date of hearing. However, it does not mean that enquiryshould he dispensed with. It is also made clear that any statementof objections filed by person who is not interested in the land hasto be summarily rejected and such person who is making suchstatement of objections must mention how the objector is interestedin the land.63. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 postulates asfollows:“Section 4 : Land acquired to vest in Governmentfree from all encumbrances – (1) When a notice under sub-section (1) of section3 is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, theland to which the said notice relates shall, on and fromthe date 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subject to such encumbrances, if any, as may besubsisting at that time: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 consequenceof the acquisition proceedings.(2) Where any land is vested in the Government undersub-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 withinthirty days of the service of the order.(3) If any person refuses or fails to comply with anorder made under sub-section (2), the Collector may takepossession of the land, and may, for that purpose, usesuch force as may be necessary.”Therefore as per Section 4(1) of the Act, when once a notice underSection 3(1) is published in the Gazette, the land to which suchnotice relates absolutely vest with the Government free from allencumbrances. On the other hand, under Section 16 of the CentralAct 1/1894 which is as follows:“Section 16. Power to take possession - When theCollector has made an award under Section 11, he maytake possession of the land, which shall thereupon vestabsolutely in the Government, free from allencumbrances.”It is only after the District Collector ultimately makes the Awardunder Section 11 and take possession of the land and thereaftervesting takes place to the Government free from encumbrances. UnderTamil Nadu Act 10/1999 after vesting of possession under Section 4(1) of the Act, the determination of amount of compensation underSection 7 comes into operation.64. Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 deals with bar ofjurisdiction of Civil Courts which is as follows:“Section 18. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts -Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, noCivil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of anymatter which the Government or the Collector is,empowered by or under this Act, to determine and noinjunction shall be granted by any Court or otherauthority in respect of any action taken or to be takenin pursuance of any power conferred by or under thisAct.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus Section 18 bars any jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect ofthe matter which the Government or District Collector is empoweredto determine under the Act. Again Section 21 of the Act whichreads as follows:“Section 21. Land Acquisition Act not to apply –Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisionsof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of1894) shall cease to apply to any land which is requiredfor the purpose specified in sub-section (1) of section3 and any such land shall be acquired by the Governmentonly in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”Thus Section 21, explicitly makes it clear that the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cease to apply to any land which isrequired as per notice under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act10/1999. It is also made abundantly clear that in respect ofSection 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, the acquisition shall beonly in accordance with the provisions of the State Act and therebyexclusively excluding Land Acquisition Act 1/1894. Again ascorrectly submitted by the learned Advocate General Section 22 ofthe Act 10/1999 overrides other law, which reads as follows:“Section 22. Act to override other laws – Theprovisions of this Act shall have effect not withstandinganything inconsistent therewith contained in any otherlaw for the time in force, or any custom, usage, orcontract or decree or order of a Court or otherauthority.”Thus Section 22 gives overriding effect to the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 from any other law, any custom, usage, or contract ordecree or order of a Court or other authority. Even if Section 22can be taken as a matter of abundant caution, the wordings of thesaid Section are sweeping in nature. Therefore, it is clear theprovisions as stated above would necessarily lead to anirresistible conclusion that Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is a selfcontained code and the provisions are to be applied only as per theterms of the Act and not as per any other law including the CentralAct 1/1894. Of course, it is true the principles of natural justiceare in-build in any law. Therefore, the general contention of thelearned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that theenquiry as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is to bethe same as that of the hearing contemplated under the Central Act1/1894 read with rules made thereunder deserves to be rejected.65. There is one other point raised by the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner about the notice issued underSection 3(2) of the Act. In respect of the notice to be issuedunder Section 3(2) as I have enumerated above, two sorts of noticeare issued viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) Notice to owners or persons interested in theopinion of the Government i.e. Form-A for which there isno procedure for service contemplated under the Act aswell as the Rules.(ii) Public notice issued under Section 3(2) forwhich Section 15 of the Act, itself makes the necessaryprocedure to be followed and such notice is issued underForm-B.66. Form-A notices issued to the owners or persons interestedas per Rule 3 or the rules framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 inall these cases are as follows:“e/f/8-2007 ehs; 6/2/2007gjpt[ m";ry;gotk;?m(tpjp 3I ghu;f;ft[k;)jkpH; ehl;luRbjhHpy; Jiw1997?Mk; Mz;ila bjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhd epyk;ifafg;gLj;Jjy; rl;lk; 10-99. 3?Mk; gpuptpd; cl;gpupt[ (2),d; fPH;tpsf;fk; nfhUk; nehl;O!;.fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk;. jpUg;bgUk;g[Jhu; tl;lk;. 134. xuflk;fpuhkj;jpy; mike;Js;sJk; fPH;f;fhQqk; tptu ml;ltizapy;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJkhd epy';fs; bjhHpypay; nehf;fj;jpw;fhf mjhtJrpg;fhl; ? Xuflk; bjhHpy; tshf tpupthf;f jpl;lj;jpw;fhfnjitg;gLfpd;wd vd;W jkpH;ehl;L muRf;Fj; njhd;Wtjhy;.me;jg;gof;F 1997?Mk; Mz;ila bjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhd epyk;ifafg;gLj;Jjy; rl;lk; 3?Mk; gpuptpd; (2) Mk; cl;gpuptpd;tpjpKiwfSf;fpz';f. bjhlu;g[ila tpjpKiwf;fpz';f rk;ge;jg;gl;lmidtUf;Fk; ifafg;gLj;j cj;njrpj;Js;s epyk; Vd;ifafg;gLj;jf;Tlhbjd;w fhuz tpsf;f mwpf;ifia. bghJ mwptpg;g[ bfhLj;Js;s ehspypUe;J Kg;gJ ehl;fSf;fFs; bfhLf;fntz;Lbkd ,jd;K:yk; mwptpg;g[ mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/tptu ml;ltiz-gpd; gf;fg;go-(xk;) gpujPg; ahjt;.,/M/g/khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiytu;fh";rpg[uk; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -cj;jut[g;go-bgWeu;jpU.-jpUkjp/jdp tl;lhl;rpau; (ep/v) xuflk; tpupthf;fj; jpl;lk;?myF jpUg;bgUk;g[Jhu;fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk;/”67. A reference to the original files submitted by therespondents in respect of all cases show that the original of Form-A has been signed by the District Collector in all these casesenclosing the details of all the properties covered in theacquisition process. It is also seen that Form-B are issued whichare as follows:“gotk; ? gpjkpH; ehl;luRbjhHpy; Jiw1997?k; Mz;ila bjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhd epyk; ifafg;gLj;Jjy;rl;lk; (jkpH;ehL rl;lk; 10-99) 3 Mk; gpupt[ cl;gpupt[ (2)d; fPHhdbghJ mwptpg;g[????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk;. jpUg;bgUk;g[Jhu; tl;lk; 134 xuflk;fpuhkj;jpy; gpshf;(I)mike;Js;s fPH;f;fhQqk; ml;ltiziapy;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epy';fs; bjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhf mjhtJ rpg;fhl;xuflk; bjhHpy; tshf tpupthf;f jpl;lj;jpw;fhf njitg;gLfpd;wd vd;WjkpH;ehl;L muRf;F njhd;Wtjhy; me;jg;gof;F 1997k; Mz;LbjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhd epyk; ifafg;gLj;Jjy; KiwfSf;fpz';fbfhLf;fg;gl;l bghJ mwptpg;ghFk;/ nkw;go ifafg;gLj;j cj;njrpj;Js;sepyj;jpy; cupik bfhz;lhLk; egu;fs; midtUk; ,e;j mwptpg;g[ btspahd njjpapy; ,Ue;J 30 ehl;fSf;Fs; mtu;fsJ Ml;nrgid-kWg;g[fis fh";rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpau; mtu;fsplk; mspf;f ntz;Lk;/nkw;go fhyf;bfLtpw;F gpwF bgwg;gLk; Ml;nrgiz-kWg;g[fis https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ my;yJ nkw;go epyj;jpd; kPJ bfhz;lhLk; cupik ghj;jpaj;ij bjspthdKiwapy; bjuptpf;fhj nkw;go Ml;nrgiz-kWg;g[fis js;Sgobra;ag;gLk;/ epu;zapf;fg;gl;l njjpf;F;s Ml;nrgizfs; VnjDk;bgwg;god; mitfs; kPJ fh";rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpau; mtu;fspd;mYtyfj;jpy; 12?3?2007 md;W fhiy 11/00 kzpf;F tprhuizbra;ag;gLk;/ mr;rkak; Ml;nrgidahsu;fs; mtu;fns neuoahfnthmy;yJ ,J rk;ge;jkhf mtu;fshy; mjpfhuk; mspf;fg;gl;l egu; my;yJegu;fnsh my;yJ tHf;fwp"nuh tha;bkhHp my;yJ Mtz Mjhu';fs;K:ykhf mtu;fspd; Ml;nrgidfis bjuptpf;fyhk;/tptu ml;ltiz-,izg;gpy; cs;s go-khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiytu; fh";rpg[uk;”It clearly shows that Form-B has been signed by the DistrictCollector, Kancheepuram on 06.02.2007. A copy of the original ofForm-A signed by the District Collector has been sent to theindividual owners by the Special Tahsildar (LA), OragadamIndustrial Expansion Scheme - I, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuramdistrict. Therefore the Special Tahsildar has only communicatedthe original copy of the notice in Form-A signed by the DistrictCollector. As far as Form-B is concerned, the original has beensigned by the District Collector and the same has been directed tobe published as per Section 15 of the Act. It is seen that theSpecial Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Expansion Scheme I,Sriperumbudur, in his letter dated 17.04.2007, addressed to theDistrict Collector has stated that Form-B has been published on06.02.2007, in the following places viz.,1.Office of the VAO, Oragadam2.Office of Block Development Officer, Padappai3.Office of Sub-Registrar, Walajabad4.Collector's Office, Kancheepuram5.Sub-Inspector's Office, Manimangalam6.Taluk Office, Sriperumbudur7.DRO's Office, KancheepuramThe files also contain the necessary certificates issued by theDeputy Tahsildar, Village Administrative Officer, ExecutiveOfficer, Officials of the District Collector's Office, Officers ofthe Kundrathur Panchayat Union, Sub Inspector of Police-Manimangalam Police Station, District Revenue Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kancheepuram, Sub Registrar, Walajabad with all particularsrelating to the entire properties.68. On the factual assertion from the files, it is clear thatForm-A as per Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 has in fact been signed by the District Collector and byhis order, the same has been communicated to the objectorsnumbering about 6,500 by the Special Tahsildar under his signatureand 'By order' of the District Collector. As far as Form-B publicnotice is concerned the same has been in fact signed by theDistrict Collector and has been published as per Rule 4 at least inseven places as it is seen in the original records.69. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learnedAdvocate General that by virtue of the powers conferred underSection 23(A) of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, the Government has issuedG.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI 1) dated 02.09.2005, directing theDistrict Collector to exercise powers except those which areexcluded under Section 23(A) of the Act. The said notification isas follows:“REVENUE DEPARTMENTDELEGATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO DISTRICT COLLECTORS UNDER THE TAMIL NADUACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSESACT, 1997[G.O.Ms.No. 513, Revenue (LAI (1), 2nd September 2005.]No.II (2) / REV / 716 (d) 2005 – In exercise ofthe powers conferred by section 23-A of the TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial PurposesAct, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999), the Governorof Tamil Nadu hereby directs that all the powersexercisable by the Government under said Act exceptthe powers excluded in the said section 23-A shallbe exercised by the Collector of the districtconcerned.(2) The notification hereby issued shall comeinto force on the 2nd of September, 2005.[published in Part II – Section 2 of the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 2nd September2005, Issue No. 199).”Section 23(A) which deals with delegation of powers is as follows:“Section 23-A. Delegation of powers – The Governmentmay, by notification, direct that all the powers under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this 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.”70. The said Section enables the Government to notifydelegation of powers to the District Collector except the powersunder Section 3(1), 4(1) and Section 25 which are exclusivelyreserved for the Government. Section 3(1) deals with notice ofacquisition to be published by the Government, Section 4(1) firstproviso deals with the power of the Government to withdraw the landfrom the acquisition, and Section 25 deals with power of theGovernment to make rules which is as follows:“Section 25. Power to make rules – (1) TheGovernment may make rules for carrying out all the or anyof the purposes of this Act.(2) In particular and without prejudice to thegenerality of the foregoing power, such rules may providefor or regulate - (a) all matters expressly required or allowedby this Act to be prescribed ; and(b) the manner of authentication of orders andother instruments of the Collector.”71. Therefore, Form-A and Form-B which are the subject matterunder Section 3(2) of the Act by delegation has been directed bythe Government to be issued by the District Collector. On perusalof the original documents it is clear that the District Collectorhas in fact signed the originals. However, in respect of Form-A asper the direction of the Collector, communicated by the SpecialTahsildar (LA) to 6,500 owners and in respect of Form-B, publicnotice has been published in the manner explained under Section 15and the rules framed under Act 10/1999.72. On facts, it is clear that as far as Form-B public noticeis concerned, the same has been issued as per the terms underSection 15 of the Act read with Rule 4. As far as Form-A notice toindividual owners a copy of the notice, original of which, has beensigned by the District Collector has been only forwarded by theSpecial Tahsildar (LA) by the orders of the District Collector tothe individual owners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

73. The word “shall” used in Section 3(2) of the Act isintended for the purpose of giving proper opportunity to the ownersto participate in the hearing apart from filing objections andmerely because under the orders of the District Collector, theSpecial Tahsildar (LA) has signed Form-A and communicated the sameto the parties, original of which has been signed by the DistrictCollector, it does not in any way infringe the principles ofnatural justice which is the basis of issuing such notice.74. It is also relevant to consider the contention of thelearned Advocate General that no one of the persons who havereceived Form-A notice have raised any objection that Form violatesthe provisions of the Act or public policy and having received suchnotices, the owners have in fact submitted their objections. Thepurpose of giving notice in Form-A is to give opportunity forfiling objections and then participate in the hearing and bycommunication of Form-A signed by the Special Tahsildar under theorders of the District Collector, the principles of natural justicehave not been infringed and even assuming that there is anytechnical error in the signing by the District Collector, in asmuch as in the originals the District Collector has signed thesame, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act.Further, by Special Tahsildar communicating Form-A signed by theDistrict Collector under his orders, no prejudice or injustice hasbeen caused to any one of the owners. The said technicality cannotbe a ground to set aside the land acquisition proceeding as awhole. 75. In respect of service of notice, objections have beenraised that some of the petitioners have not received noticesissued under Section 3(2) of the Act, especially in Form-A.Section 14 of the Act provides the mode of service of notice whichis as follows:“Section 14. Service of notices, etc., (1) Allnotices, orders and other documents required by this Actor any rule made thereunder to be served upon any personshall, save as otherwise provided in this Act or suchrule, 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 I 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 byregistered post, or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) left at the said place of business;(c) where the person to be served is a statutorypublic body or a corporation or a society or other body,if the document is addressed to the Secretary, Treasureror other head officer of that body, corporation orsociety at its principal office and is either-(i) sent under a certificate of posting or byregistered post; or(ii) left at that office;(d) in any other case, if the document is addressedto the person to be served and -(i) is given or tendered to him; or(ii) if such person cannot be found, is affixed onsome conspicuous part of his last known place ofresidence or business or is given or tendered to someadult member of his family or is affixed on someconspicuous part of the land or building to which itrelates; or(iii) is sent under a certificate of posting, or byregistered post to that person.(2) Any document which is required or authorised tobe served on the owner or occupier of any land orbuilding may be addressed “the owner” or “the occupier”,as the case may be, of that land or building (naming thatland or building) without further name or description,and shall be deemed to be duly served.(a) if the document so addressed is sent ordelivered in accordance with clause (d) of sub-section(1); or(b) if the document so addressed or a copy thereofso addressed, is given or tendered to some person on theland or building or, where there is no person on the landor building to whom it can be delivered, is affixed tosome conspicuous part of the land or building.(3) Where a document is served on the firm inaccordance with this section, the document shall bedeemed to be served on each partner.(4) For the purpose of enabling any document to beserved on the owner of any property, the occupier (ifany) of the property may be required by notice in writingby the Government, to state the name and address of theowner thereof.”A reference to the files show that notices have been in fact sentfor which evidence of certificate of posting and in some casesregistered post are there. Therefore, the contention in thatregard is liable to be rejected. The files also reveal that infact the respondents have taken steps to verify from the records ofSub-Registrars to know about the name of the owners in whose namethe respective properties stood and individual objections were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered. 76. In respect of the next submission relating to the hearingconducted by the District Collector as stated under Section 3(3) ofthe Act, due to the reason that under Section 23(A), the Governmentby G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI 1) dated 02.09.2005 has delegatedthe power to the District Collector, the District Collector hasjurisdiction to conduct the hearing. 77. It is admitted in all these cases that the petitionershave been called for hearing by the District Collector on two daysviz., 20.03.2007 and 26.03.2007. The notice fixing the date ofenquiry by the District Collector as it is filed in the typed setof papers by some the writ petitioners is as follows:““jdp tl;lhl;rpah; (epv) mYtyfk;rpg;fhl;-xuflk; tphpthf;fj; jpl;lk;-myFjpUg;bgUk;g[J}h;e/f/ -2007(xuflk;) -myF 1) ehs; 3/07/bghUs;::epy vLg;g[ - rpg;fhl; - xuflk; tphpthf;fj; jpl;lk 134. xuflk; fpuhkj;jpy; rpg;fhl; epWtdj;jpw;F epy vLg;g[ bra;tJ - Ml;nrgiz kD kPJ tprhuiz bra;tJ-bjhlh;ghf/ghh;it::jpU-jpUkjp/ vd;gtupd; kD ehs; ––––,jdhy; fPnH Fwpg;gpl;l egUf;F bjhptpg;gJ ahbjdpy;jpUg;bgUk;g[J}h; tl;lk; 134. xuflk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/ y; cs;sepyj;ij rpg;fhl; epWtdj;Jf;F epyvLg;g[ bra;tJ bjhlhh;ghf jpU-jpUkjp/ K./nfhkjp nfrtd; f-bg j-bg vd;gth; bfhLj;Js;sMl;nrgiz kD kPJ fh";rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth;mYtyfj;jpy; 26/03/2007 md;W gfy; 12/00 kzpf;F khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; mth;fs; neuo tprhuiz bra;a cs;shh;/ ,J bjhlh;ghdmidj;J mry; Mtz';fSld; jh';fs; tprhuizf;F M$uhFk;go https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ mt;thW M$uhfj; jtwpdhy; ,Uf;fpd;wMtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; nky; eltof;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;gJbjhptpf;fg;ggLfpwJ/jdp tl;lhl;rpah; (epv) rpg;fhl;-xuflk; tphpthf;fj; jpl;lk;-myF1jpUg;bgUk;g[J}h; ”After the said dates of enquiry it is seen that Special Tahsildar(LA), Oragadam Industrial Expansion Scheme I, Sriperumbudur, hassigned notices dated 30.04.2007 which is as follows:“e/f/vz;/7-2007myF1B15 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.)ehs; /04/2007 SIPCOT – ORAGADAM EXPANSION SCHEME UNIT SRIPERUMBUDURnehl;O!;fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk;. jpUg;bgUk;g[J}h; tl;lk;. Xuflk; kw;W;kbrd;dFg;gk; fpuhk';fspy; rpg;fhl; bjhHpy; tshfk; tp!;jhpg;g[ bra;tjw;F jkpH;ehL bjhHpypay; nehf;f';fSf;fhd epy vLg;g[ rl;lk; 1997 (rl;lk; vz; 10-1999)d; fPH; epy vLg;g[ bra;a murhy;cj;jputplg;gl;L eltof;ifapy; cs;sJ/ ,jdpilna epychpikahsh;fSf;F epahakhd re;ij kjpg;g[ tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;wnehf;fj;jpw;fhf khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiyth; epy chpikahsh;fSld;gyKiw ngr;R thh;j;ij elj;jp. nkw;go fpuhkj;jpj;y eilbgw;wtpw;giz Fwpj;j g[s;sp tptuk;. tHpfhl;o gjpntL kjpg;g[. cs;S:h;re;ij kjpg;g[ nghd;wtw;wpd; mog;gilapy; fPH;fz;lthW epy kjpg;g[ tH';f muR Kd; te;Js;sJ.j';fSila epyj;jpd; tptuk;:: xuflk; - brd;dFg;gk; fpuhkk;giHa g[y vz;////////////////////////g[jpa g[y vz; /49-1B tp!;jPudk; kidvz;/6/////////////////////////////////////////////////bcwf;nlh; -Vf;fh; -rJu mo Mfk;/j';fsJ epyk;//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////y; mike;Js;sJ/ nkw;gOepyj;jpw;F Vf;fh; - fput[z;L xd;Wf;F epy kjpg;g[ U:/2.50.000 jucj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go epyj;jpy; fl;olk;. kuk; VnjDk; ,Ug;gpd; mjw;Fz;lhd kjpg;g[ chpa Kiwapy; kjpg;gPL bra;ag;gl;LtH';fg;gLk;/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nkw;go epy kjpg;gpid bgw;Wf;bfhz;L muRf;F epyj;jpidtpw;giz bra;a tpUk;gpdhy; j';fSila epyj;jpw;Fz;lhd fpuag;gj;jpuk;. K:yg; gj;jpuk;. gl;lh efy; (j';fsplk; ,Ug;gpd;) epychpikahsh; fhykhfptpl;oUe;jhy; ,wg;g[ rhd;W kw;Wk; thhpRr; rhd;WMfpatw;wpd; g[ifg;gl efy;fs; kw;Wk; nkw;go epyk; cupikrk;ke;jkhf tHf;F ePjpkd;w';fs; kw;Wk; tUtha;j; JiwapYk;epYitapy; ,y;iy vd;w cWjpbkhHpa[ld;. ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s gotj;jpy; g{h;j;jp bra;J 11/05/2007 njjpf;Fs;shfjdp tl;lhl;rpah; (ep/v/) xuflk; tphpthf;fj; jpl;lk;. vz;/ 39-A/rp.v!;/I/ gs;sp re;J. neUtPjp.. _bgUk;g[J}h; 602 105 mth;fSf;F. gjpt[ jghy;-bfhhpah; rh;tP!;-jdp egh; K:yk; mDg;gp chpa rhd;wpidbgw;Wf; bfhs;SkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;ggLfpwJ/ mjd; gpd;dh; mry;Mtz';fs; ghprPyiz kw;Wk; neuo tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L epy chpikkw;Wk; tp!;jPuzk; Kot[ bra;j gpd;dh; epy kjpg;gpidg;bgw;Wf;bfhz;L. muRf;F gj;jpug; gjpt[ bra;tjw;fhd eltof;iffs;nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; njjp. tpguk; Mfpait jdpna mwptpf;fg;gLk;vd;W bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ xg;gk; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.) SIPCOT – ORAGADAM EXPANSION SCHEME UNIT SRIPERUMBUDUR,izg;g[: gotk;”78. The said notice which is certainly not forming part of theacquisition proceedings can at the best be taken as a proposalintimating that the Government has fixed the compensation ofRs.2,50,000/- per ground and stating that those owners who arewilling can prove their identity by filling up the Form, in whichevent, as per the willingness of the owners, compensation will bepaid in course of time. Issuance of such letter which may be forprivate negotiation in respect of the owners of the property whoare really willing to give the property for the industrial purpose,does not affect the land acquisition proceedings especially in thecircumstances that it is not in dispute that majority of the ownersin the area accepted to surrender possession for the compensationfixed by the Government. It is seen that out of 6,500 owners andoccupants of portion in the said area, it is only 17 persons whoare before this Court who have raised objections about theacquisition proceedings. Therefore, by such notice issued by theSpecial Tahsildar, which is only to enable the willing owners tosurrender the property if they accept voluntarily the compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fixed by the Government. In any event such notice has not takenaway the power and right of the petitioners before this Court toquestion the validity of acquisition which is being considered inthese cases.79. It is the case of all the petitioners that on the date ofhearing, actually there was no hearing took place even though largenumber of people have assembled and therefore according to thelearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, it will notamount to proper enquiry. 80. It is seen in the proceedings of the District Collectorforwarded to the Commissioner of Land Administration, that DistrictCollector has conducted hearing on 20.03.2007 and 26.03.2007 andthe District Collector has also considered the response of SIPCOTthe requisitioning body wherein the SIPCOT has stated that theproposed expansion of industrial complex for automobile industry ishighly desirable and inevitable. In the existing IndustrialComplex at Oragadam, several automobile units have been allottedlands by SIPCOT. A National Automotive Testing Research andDevelopment Infrastructure Project (NATRIP) has also been createdin the existing Industrial Complex and the proposed expansion ofIndustrial complex will not only result in the overall economicdevelopment of State, but also would provide job opportunitieseither direct or indirect to the local people. The economic statusof the people in the surrounding will also improve and SIPCOTrequires the land only for expansion of the existing industrialcomplex and there is no other suitable land available.81. It was considering the said response, the DistrictCollector has requested the Government to issue notification underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. On the date ofhearing, it is seen that the District Collector has considered thewritten objections given by the petitioners and others who haveparticipated in the enquiry and also the declaration submitted byvarious owners for private negotiation accepting to deliver orsurrender possession on receipt of compensation fixed by theGovernment. 82. In the light of the Division Bench judgment inK.Ramakrishnan Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by itsSecretary to Industries Department (2007 WLR 565) upholding thevalidity of Act 10/1999, I am of the considered view that theprocedure followed for the purpose of acquisition as per Act10/1999 is in substantial compliance of various requirements of theAct as well as the Rules framed thereunder.83. Considering the contents of the files and also theadmitted fact that notice under Form-A has been received but the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only reason given to question the same is that it was not signed bythe District Collector, which for the reasons I have substantiatedabove, makes it clear that there is substantial compliance. On thecontention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersthat Form-A and Form-B are not in accordance with the Act has nobasis and the contentions in this regard are liable to be rejected.Further, the hearing conducted by the District Collector cannot besaid to be opposed to the principles of Natural Justice especiallyin the circumstances that out of the total extent of 395.87.5heaters equivalent to 977.81 acres of land which include 891.61acre of Patta land and 86.20 acres of Poromboke land, the lands ofthe 17 writ petitioners who challenge the acquisition proceedingscovered only in respect of 14 acres alone and a reference to thesketch provided by the learned Advocate General makes it very clearthat vast extent of lands acquired and the lands of the 17petitioners which are forming part of small patches here and thereand that the earlier writ petitions filed were withdrawn in view ofthe compensation offered by the Government and accepted by the landowners, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioners donot raise any substantial issue to be considered for the purpose ofsetting aside the acquisition proceedings. 84. The next point which has been urged on behalf of thepetitioners is about the validity of the administrative sanctionissued by the Government in respect of the acquisition of lands forthe purpose of Tamil Nadu Act, 10/1999. The said impugnedG.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 03.11.2006, areading of which states that before the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 cameinto existence there was an earlier administrative sanction byG.O.Ms.No.125, dated 09.05.1997, to acquire an extent of 636.88.0hectares equivalent to 1573.01 acres by invoking urgency provisionof Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to transferan extent of 190.34.0 hectares of poramboke lands in favour ofTamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure DevelopmentLimited (TACID) which has been subsequently merged with SIPCOT forsetting up Industrial Complex at Oragadam. It is also stated thatout of the said 1573.01 acres for which sanction was given, anextent of 1507.34 acres were actually acquired. The said G.O. alsostates that lot of applications were received for allotment ofremaining areas and SIPCOT has decided to take up expansion ofexisting 395.87.5 hectares of patta and poramboke lands in Oragadamand Sennakuppam villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk. 85. In respect of those portion of the G.O. Mr.V.Ayyathurai,has raised objection that under the earlier acquisition proceedingthe Government has not taken steps to acquire remaining 65 acres oflands. While so, the lands of the petitioners which are only 17acres should not have been acquired and instead the Governmentshould have taken steps to acquire 65 acres of land as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earlier acquisition proceedings under the Central Act. Thiscontention deserves to be rejected at the outset. The presentproposal is for the expansion of the existing Oragadam IndustrialComplex for which SIPCOT has identified the requirement of 395.87.5hectares of land and merely because a smaller extent of land remainto be acquired under the earlier acquisition proceedings, it cannotbe said that the present acquisition for expansion of existingindustrial complex should also be held invalid. In any event, ifthe petitioners are of the view that their lands are to beexempted, it is not as if they have no right under the Act. Infact the Government has got the power to withdraw acquisitionproceedings under proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act. 86. The impugned order while granting administrative sanctionfor acquisition of 91.07.0 hectares of wet lands, 269.90.5 hectaresof dry lands and alienation of 34.90.0 hectares of Poramboke landsin Oragadam and Sennakuppam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 for expansion of the Oragadam Industrial Complex by SIPCOT,and stated in paragraph 10 of the impugned order which is asfollows:“10. The Special District Revenue Officer (LandAcquisition) is requested to send necessary landacquisition proposals for acquisition of the above saidlands under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisitionof Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil NaduAct, 10/1999) immediately. The Special District RevenueOfficer (Land Acquisition) is also requested to sendnecessary alienation proposal to Government in RevenueDepartment through the Special Commissioner andCommissioner of Land Administration separately.”87. The objections raised in respect to the said portion isthat while under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, the District Collectorand the Government is the Authority, the Government Orderpertaining to the acquisition has invested the powers to theSpecial District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), who is not theCollector and therefore the Government order is against theprovisions of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. This argument is fallacious.88. The Act deals about the acquisition proceedings which arestarted by giving notice as per Section 3(2) of the Act to ownersand persons interested and followed by public notice. The G.O.which is in question dated 03.11.2006, is much before theinitiation of acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999,granting administrative sanction for the purpose of proposedacquisition and for that purpose the Special District RevenueOfficer (LA) is directed to send proposals to the Government so asto enable the Government to proceed for acquisition of the lands. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

89. The intention of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.139, dated03.11.2006, is not to substitute Special District Revenue Officer(LA) in the place of District Collector in initiating andconducting acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999.It does not mean that the Special District Revenue Officer (LA) isentrusted with the powers to give notice under Section 3(2) of theAct. Since it is at the stage of proposal, it has not taken thestatutory form. Therefore authority by sending proposal namelySpecial District Revenue Officer (LA) does perform any statutoryfunction under Act 10/1999. 90. As correctly pointed out by the learned Advocate Generalthat it is a preliminary report for enabling the Government tostart acquisition proceedings through the authorities contemplatedunder the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, as per the provisions, especiallySection 3(2) read with Section 23(A) of the Act. Therefore, theSpecial District Revenue Officer (LA) is not empowered to performthe statutory functions under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 and therefore, the contention raised by the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioners as if extraneous persons areentrusted with the acquisition proceedings are liable to berejected.91. After arriving at to the conclusion as stated above, theindividual writ petitions are considered shortly which is asfollows:-(i) W.P.No.29575 of 2007:In respect of W.P.No.29575 of2007, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that thepetitioner has received the compensation and delivered possessionof the land. There is no representation on behalf of thepetitioner also. In view of the same the said writ petitiondeserves to be dismissed as infructuous.(ii) W.P.No.33294 of 2007:The first petitioner isM/s. Triway Container Freight Station, while the petitioners 2 to 4are the vendors of the first petitioner, the second petitionerVenkatapathy Naidu is the original owner who has previously filedW.P.No.3111 of 2007 challenging the G.O.Ms.No.139, dated03.11.2006. As it is admitted in the affidavit filed in support ofthe present writ petition, the second respondent has included fiveout of seven items of property mentioned in this writ petitionviz., S.Nos.69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6 and 71/8A1. In respect ofother two number viz., S.Nos.153/3 and 70/1 including the otherfive S.Nos. Form-A notice was issued on 26.01.2007 and Form-B waspublished on 29.01.2007 and the earlier writ petition having beenfilled on 12.01.2007 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Itis stated that in the said writ petition counter affidavit dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.02.2007 was filed stating that objections filed by thepetitioners will be considered at the time of Section 3(2) noticeand subsequently the same was dismissed as infructuous on26.04.2007. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents inthis writ petition, it is stated that the second petitioner who wasthe original owner has filed W.P.No.3111 of 2007, in respect offive items of properties comprised in S.Nos.69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6and 71/8A1. The writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuouson 26.04.2007 and it was thereafter, the first petitioner companyhas purchased the present seven items mentioned in the present writpetition which includes five items, subject matter of previousW.P.No.3111 of 2007. The purchase was on 07.05.2007, i.e., afterthe notice issued under Section 3(2) and also hearing conducted bythe Collector. It is not in dispute that the above writ petitionfiled by the second petitioner was dismissed without any liberty tofile fresh writ petition. It is the contention of the learnedAdvocate General that the purchaser viz., the first petitioner hasclandestinely joined his vendors as petitioners 2 to 4 and filedthe present writ petition for the same relief, however, includingtwo more properties viz., S.Nos.153/1 and 70/1 and thereforeaccording to him, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed onthe principles of res judicata and as far as other twosurvey numbers are concerned, the petitioners have not come withclean hands and it is also liable to be rejected. It is alsostated that the person interested has not filed any objections.Even assuming that the first petitioner having prior interest basedon an alleged lease deed, it is specifically stated in the counteraffidavit that W.P.No.3111/2007 was dismissed as infructuous on26.04.2007 as the petitioner accepted the compensation offered bythe respondent. The said categorical statement of the respondentin the counter affidavit has not been controverted by thepetitioners especially the second petitioner. In view of the sameit is clear that the writ petition is not maintainable both on theground of filing of the earlier writ petition by the secondpetitioner for the same relief which was dismissed without libertyand also on the ground that the writ petitioners have came to theCourt without clean hands. On this score alone, the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed.(iii) W.P.No.16922 of 2007: The specific contention raised bythe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the presentacquisition proceedings are hit by Special Economic Zone Act, 2005.It is also not in dispute that originally there were seven writpetitioners and subsequently petitioners 6 & 7 have withdrawn. Inview of the admitted position, writ petition has to be dismissed asfar as petitioners 6 and 7 are concerned. It is not in dispute thatthe present acquisition in question is for expansion of existingindustry by SIPCOT and therefore the Special Economic Zone does notarise. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the saidSEZ Act 2005 has superseded the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said contention is not tenable. In fact in this case on behalfof the petitioners the learned counsel has filed memo dated20.03.2007, and submitted to the Enquiry Officer viz. the DistrictCollector and the said memo does not contain any objectionregarding the notice and the counsel only requested time forfurnishing various documents. Therefore, it cannot be said as ifthe petitioner was not given opportunity. The further contentionabout legal impediment with regard to classification that thepetitioner's property are classified as residential and thereforethe conversion into industrial zone will result in legal impedimentis also not sufficient for the purpose of setting aside theacquisition proceeding. The contention that it is colourableexercise of power also has no meaning.(iv) W.P.No.29113 of 2007: The petitioner has admittedlyreceived Form-A notice whereas he has admittedly sent objectionsonly on 27.04.2007, which is beyond the time granted in Form-Anotice. Further in the present writ petition for the first timethe petitioner has chosen to state about the objections stated tohave been filed on 15.02.2007 and the same is specifically deniedby the respondents and the petitioner is not able to produce anyproof except the xerox copy of the courier. In the absence of anyacceptable proof shown by the petitioner for having sent theobjections on 15.02.2007, it is not possible to accept thecontention that objections of the petitioner has not beenconsidered by the respondents. In this case also it is seen thatthe petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.18034 of 2007 challengingthe G.O.Ms.No.139 dated 03.11.2006, in respect of S.Nos.70/8, 70/3,70/18, 70/7, 70/17, 70/13C, 70/10, 70/13B, 70/9 and 70/14. Thatcase was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 02.11.2007,which is as follows:“In view of the fact that W.P.No.29113 of 2007 hasbeen filed by the very same petitioner, seeking largerrelief, which is inclusive of the relief sought for inthis writ petition, this writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.”Section 3(2) notice in Form-A was issued on 26.01.2007. Theearlier writ petition was filed on 09.05.2007, admittedly afterreceipt of Form-A notice, however stating that objections were senton 27.04.2007. In view of the withdrawal of the writ petition, thelearned Advocate General would submit that these writ petitions arenot maintainable. On the other hand, it is the contention ofMr.V.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thatby leaving a portion, earlier writ petition was filed and it doesnot prevent the same petitioner to file another writ petition withlarger extent of properties, by relying upon Order II Rule 2 ofC.P.C. Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. which contemplates relinquishment.Even if a portion of his claim is relinquished, under Order II Rule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 C.P.C. where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, orintentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall notafterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted orrelinquished. Even though the provisions of Order II Rule 2 maynot be strictly applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, the fact remains that the petitionerhaving filed earlier writ petition and withdrawn the same withoutliberty cannot be permitted to file the present writ petition onthe same cause of action. It is also relevant to point out thatthe writ petitioner is one of the Director in M/s.Triway ContainerFreight Station Pvt. Ltd. who is the petitioner in W.P.No.33294 of2007 as stated above.(v) W.P.No.29090 of 2007: The main contention is that no showcause notice under Section 3(2) was received by the petitioner.However, it is seen from the records that larger extent of propertyincluding the present property in dispute in the said writ petitionstands in the name of one Mr.Jayaraman and notice was issued tohim. In the absence of any change in the revenue records in thename of the writ petitioner, service of notice to previous ownersMr. Jayaraman is sufficient service in Form-A and in respect ofForm-B reveled from the records, the respondents have takenenormous steps for the purpose of publishing public notice throughout the area since almost the entire village was sought to beacquired and it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was notaware. In respect of the contention of the petitioner that he hasdedicated the property to Christian Trust an extent of 1800 sq.ft.,for which the respondents have filed counter stating that theendowment of trust is subsequent to the proceedings of the landacquisition under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. As it is found fromvarious provision of Act 10/1999 the petitioner is claimingexemption or withdrawal of the acquisition on the basis that theGovernment has a policy that religious places should be exempted.It is for the petitioners to approach the Government and it isopen to the Government to decide the same and that will not standin the way of the acquisition proceedings.(vi) W.P.No.29707 of 2007: Here the contention is that Section3(2) notice was not served to him even though he has purchased theproperty on 22.12.2004. In this case also revenue records stood inthe name of Mr.Jayaraman and notice was issued to him and thepetitioner if really residing in the said locality, it cannot besaid that he was not aware of the public notice. It is also seenthat the petitioner is running a saloon in the locality where largenumber of persons gather and therefore it cannot be presumed thatthe petitioner was not aware, especially in the circumstances as Ihave elaborated above, on the basic of records, elaborate stepshave been taken by the respondents to publish Form-B notice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii) W.P.No.29708 of 2007: The petitioner also raised theissue of non receipt of Section 3(2) notice and the respondentscase is that the property stands in the name of previous ownerMr.Jayaraman and he was served with notice. The petitioner haspurchased the property only on 12.01.2007, while the administrativesanction was issued on 03.11.2006, being the subsequent purchaserof the property i.e. before 20 days before Section 3(2) notice inForm-B the original owner was served with notice.(viii) W.P.No.29709 of 2007. It is also the case where thepetitioners have not received Section 3(2) notice at all. It is thecase of the respondent that the petitioners wife one of the co-owner gave consent for acquisition by letter dated 24.07.2007 andit was after that, the objections were sent belatedly viz., on12.05.2007, by which time enquiry was completed. It is also statedthat in the revenue records the property stood in the name ofMr.Jayaraman, to whom notice was served.(ix) W.P.No.29701 of 2007: The petitioner has purchased theproperty on 12.01.2007 and complained that he has not receivednotice under Section 3(2). It is also stated that in the revenuerecords the property stood in the name of Mr.Jayaraman, to whomnotice was served. The respondents have categorically stated thatthe objections stated to have been sent by the petitioners have notbeen received. Even otherwise, acknowledgment shows that the samewas served on 16.05.2007, by that time, enquiry was completed.(x) W.P.No.30019 of 2007: The petitioners has obtained theproperty through settlement deed dated 06.06.2006 and obtainedpatta on 18.09.2006 and constructed a shopping complex and having aSSI unit doing embroidery work and her case is that she has notreceived Section 3(2) notice. In this case also the propertystands in the name of Mr.Jayaraman and show cause notice was issuedto him and public notice in the locality was published on02.02.2007. The contention of the petitioner that she was doingindustrial activity by registering with the Industry and CommerceDepartment from Government of India and it is not the ground forthe purpose of setting aside the land acquisition proceedings inthe present case.(xi) W.P.No.30020 of 2007: The petitioner's mother is statedto have purchased the property under a sale deed dated 29.03.1990and the same was inherited by the petitioner after her death.Coming to know about the acquisition rumors, he had obtainedSection 3(2) notice in Form-A on 26.02.2007 and submitted hisobjections on 26.02.2007. The petitioner attended the hearing andenquiry on 20.03.2007. According to him there was no such enquiry.It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's objectionsdated 26.02.2007 was received belatedly on 08.03.2007. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegation that further notice will be sent for enquiry is deniedby the respondents and according to them enquiry was conducted on20.03.2007. The case of the petitioner is that he intends to putup a structure.(xii) W.P.No.30021 of 2007: Here also the petitioner purchasedthe property on 29.03.1990 and after coming to known about theacquisition received Form-A notice on 21.02.2007, submitted hisobjections on 26.02.2007. According to the respondents, objectionwas received belatedly on 08.03.2007, beyond the time and thereforeit needed no consideration.(xiii) W.P.No.30255 of 2007 : The petitioner obtained theproperty through partition deed dated 06.01.2004 and he had put upa commercial complex and about 200 persons are either directly orindirectly employed in the said premises. In this case also nonotice under Section 3(2) was served on the petitioner. It isstated that in the revenue records the property stood in the nameof Mr.Jayaraman, to whom notice was served. It is the case of therespondents that the petitioner's objections were receivedbelatedly.(xiv) W.P.No.30256 of 2007 : The petitioner obtained theproperty through partition deed dated 04.12.2003. In this case alsono notice under Section 3(2) was served on the petitioner. It isstated that in the revenue records the property stood in the nameof Mr.Jayaraman, to whom notice was served. It is the case of therespondents that the petitioner's objections were receivedbelatedly. (xv) W.P.No.32290 of 2007: The contention of the petitioner isthat he purchased the property on 24.02.1988 and on receipt ofnotice under Section 3(2), objection were sent stating that thepetitioner needs the land for starting industrial catering serviceand objected the acquisition. It is the case of the respondentsthat petitioner's land was notified under Section 3(1) of the Acton 04.07.2007 and the same has not been questioned. Once theacquisition proceedings are not challenged, the vesting takes placeand the petitioner has no right to challenge the administrativesanction and Section 3(2) notice. As far as the contention of thepetitioner that he is an entrepreneur doing industrial cateringservice and hence his property should not be acquired, it is alwaysopen to the petitioner to approach the SIPCOT for the purpose ofallotment and in such case, it is for the SIPCOT to decide andthere is also a remedy available for him to request the Governmentto drop the acquisition proceeding for the reason stated thereinand it cannot be a ground to set aside the acquisition proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xvi) W.P.No.30062 of 2007: It is the case of the petitionerthat he purchased the property on 18.05.2006, for developingprinting industry and according to the petitioner notice underSection 3(2) of the Act was not served. It is the case of therespondents that as per revenue records, the properties stand inthe name of Sathyanathan and Sundar Rao Sumathi and notice wasserved on them and thereafter public notice was also given on02.02.2007.(xvii) W.P.No.29294 of 2007: The petitioner purchased theproperty by sale deed dated 27.06.2005. The contention of thepetitioner is that Section 3(2) notice dated 06.02.2007 wasreceived on 15.02.2007 and objection were filed and notice toattend personal hearing on 26.03.2007 was also received. Thecontention of the petitioner is that on the date of enquiry heparticipated and shown the originals and the District Collector hadnot conducted any enquiry. It is also his case that compensationawarded is not adequate. The respondents case is that if thecompensation is not accepted to him he can resort to the provisionof the Act which enables him to claim enhanced compensation afterreference. 92. The learned senior counsel and the other learned counselsappearing for the petitioners relied upon the following judgmentsto substantiate their submission:(i) Mr.V.Ayyathurai learned counsel relied upon the judgmentof Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Devinder Singh Vs. State ofPunjab ((2008) 1 SCC 728). In that judgment apart from the factthat it relates to Central Act 1/1894, there is absolutely nodispute about the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in para 42 and 43 which is as follows:“42. It is furthermore trite that the LandAcquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation. (SeeHindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius ShapurChenai and Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure IndustrialCoke & Chemicals Ltd.)43. Expropriatory legislation, as is well known,must be strictly construed. When the properties of acitizen are being compulsorily acquired by a State inexercise of its power of eminent domain, the essentialingredients thereof, namely, existence of a publicpurpose and payment of compensation are principalrequisites therefor. In the case of acquisition of landfor a private company, existence of a public purposebeing not a requisite criterion, other statutoryrequirements call for strict compliance, being imperativein character.”Even though the concept of public purpose may not be applicable as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ far as the present proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999,industrial purpose is the main criterion for acquisition. It is nodoubt true that being expropriatory law procedure are to bescrupulously followed, as I have enumerated above, in fact theprocedure under the Act has been followed.(ii) A reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of thisCourt reported in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A.P.Damodaraasamy((2007) 3 MLJ 189) which relates to enquiry under Section 5-A ofthe Central Act 1/1894 and this judgment has no application as Ihave already held that 'hearing' contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act10/1999 is not relateable to the 'enquiry' contemplated underSection 5-A of the Central Act 1/1894.(iii) Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learned counsel relied upon thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in I.I.S. Employees'House Building Coop. Society Ltd., vs. State of Karnataka ((2005)12 SCC 483), where acquisition proceedings have been initiatedagainst dead person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that afterthe death, the son's name was already entered in the revenuerecords and the authority should have issued notice to the son andit was in those circumstances held that acquisition proceedings arenot valid, while quashing Section 4(1) notification and Section 6declaration. However, the facts of the present case does notrelate to acquisition made against dead persons. (iv) The Judgment relied upon by Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learnedcounsel in V.Sarangapani (deceased) Vs. Collector of Thanjavur,reported in ((2006) 2 MLJ 606), relates to Tamil Nadu Acquisitionof Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 wherein thesatisfaction of the District Collector for the purpose ofrequirement for Harijan Welfare is condition precedent. In thecontext of the present Act 10/1999 the said judgment is notapplicable to the facts of the case on hand.(v) Likewise, the Judgment of this Court in M.Nagu Vs. theDistrict Collector, Sivaganga District reported in (2008 (2) CTC468), which also relates to Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land forHarijan Welfare Schemes Act, is not applicable to the facts of thepresent case. That was because, instead of the District Collectorwho has to satisfy himself for Harijan Welfare Scheme, the StateGovernment has formed its satisfaction and this Court has held thatthe acquisition is bad.(vi) The Judgment relied upon by Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learnedcounsel in Om Prakash Sharma and others Vs. M.P.Audyogik KendraVikas Nigam ((2005) 10 SCC 306), relates to Section 4(1)notification under the Central Act 1/1894, wherein Section 4(1)notification was held to be vague and the said judgment has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application to the facts of these cases.(vii) In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inCompetent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory ((2005) 13 SCC 477),wherein the acquisition was under the National Highways Act and inas much as the notification has not contained specific portion ofthe property which was sought to be acquired and therefore therewas dispute regarding the identity of the land under acquisition.The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said facts has ultimately heldthat acquisition is bad. However, in no one of the present caseany such point of vagueness has been raised by the petitioners andtherefore the settled proposition of law as laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment is of no use to thepetitioners.(viii) The Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in SharpTools, Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu(2006 (4) CTC 785) relates to the Central Act 1/1894. Form-B noticeunder Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1991 which prescribesfurther time beyond the time granted under Section 4(1) of the Actviz., 30 days from the date of notice is in violation of Rule 4(b)and held that portion of Form-B has to be ignored. However, thesaid ruling of the Full Bench has no application to the facts ofthe present cases which are totally different.(ix) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered inState of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia (AIR 1991 SC 1933)relates to Civil Services recruitment, wherein it was held that anyorder, instruction, direction or notification issued in exercise ofthe executive power of the State which is contrary to any Statutoryprovisions is without jurisdiction and it is nullity. The saidjudgment which relates to service jurisprudence has no applicationto the facts of the present case.(x) Likewise, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inD.C.Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India (AIR 1994 SC 1805) which alsorelates to service jurisprudence which states that final order hadto be passed by the competent authority on recommendation of thecommittee. Such officer, it is stated, is always higher in rankthan Deputy Managing Director and on that basis the order passed bythe inferior authority which was against the guidelines and it washeld that the order of punishment was not sustainable. On thefacts and circumstances of the present case the above judgment hasno application.(xi) The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counselin Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chennai((2005) 7 SCC 627), relates to land acquisition under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forpublic purpose and Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatorylegislation and it should be strictly construed. It has noapplication to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt while dealing about action under the Central Act 1/1894,which has to be by the State Government, held that due to the longpassage of time and that subsequent affidavit filed by theGovernment stating that records have been lost, the DistrictCollector was not authorised to act on behalf of the State.However, in the present case, as per the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, asI have elaborately discussed, the District Collector is theauthority who has been delegated for the purpose of conductinghearing under Section 3(2) of the Act by the State Government inaccordance with Section 23(A) of the Act by a Gazette Notification.(xii) Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in Kewal Chand Mimani (D) by LRs. Vs. S.K.Sen ((2001) 6SCC 512, which relates to the concept of justice oriented approach.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that justice is the goal ofjurisprudence – processual/procedural, as much as substantive. Therelevant para 27 is as follows:-“27. The issue, however, involved in the presentcontext centres round Section 108(A) of the Transfer ofProperty Act which provides the rights and liabilities ofthe lessee on the determination of the lease. The statutehas been rather specific to the fact that there isexistence of a bounden obligation to put the lessor inpossession of the property, and it is on this score thatMr Nariman, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for oneof the respondents very strongly contended that thestatute has created an enforceable obligation andquestion of acting contra to the provisions of law doesnot and cannot arise. It is on this score, the issue ofcomplete justice between the parties has been brought toour notice. It is trite knowledge that presently, the lawcourts are being guided by a justice-oriented approach,since the concept of justice is the call of the day andthe need of the hour. Justice is the goal ofjurisprudence — processual/procedural, as much assubstantive. Puritan approach has lost its significancein the present-day context; since justice ought to be theend product of equity and go to the roots. It is thiscomplete justice between the parties which standsstatutorily recognised in Section 108(A) as noticed above(please see the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. inAhmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Ramanlal Govindram).” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xiii) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied uponby the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in State ofPunjab Vs. Sanjeet Singh Grewal (III (2007) CLT 132 (SC)) relatesto land acquisition proceedings wherein the State Government hasproceeded to acquire land without obtaining permission from thecompetent authority under the provision of the Punjab New Capital(Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder.Under such circumstances, it was held in para 30 & 31 as follows:-“30. The learned Additional Solicitor General alsosubmitted that the High Court proceeded on the erroneousbasis that a scheme should first be formulated in detailbefore acquisition of land. We do not find that the HighCourt has committed such error. The High Court did nothold the acquisition to be bad on the ground that adetailed scheme had not been prepared, but on the groundthat there was no valid scheme at all, and consequentlyno valid public purpose justifying the acquisition.31. It was then contended that the State in exerciseof its power of eminent domain may acquire lands underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and it is notdenuded of its power to acquire land merely because underthe scheme of some other Act a certain procedure has beenprescribed for acquisition of land. In the facts of thiscase we are not persuaded to accept this submission. Inthe instant case, the lands were sought to be acquiredfor the purpose of implementation of a New Town Schemeand, therefore, the procedure laid down in the Act of1995 had to be followed. The learned AdditionalSolicitor General submitted that if this be the correctlegal position the State may be powerless in case theBoard under the Act of 1995 did not select a site for anew town. This submission also has no force becauseunder Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 1995,if required by the State Government the Board is bound toselect a site for a new town. In the instant case, theState never called upon the Board to select a site, andinstead a New Town Planning and Development Authority wasconstituted under Section 31 of the Act which arrogatedto itself the powers and functions of the Board to selecta site and make a recommendation to the StateGovernment.”As far as the present cases are concerned, the acquisition is forindustrial purpose under a specialized Act 10/1999. There is noquestion of any scheme to be formulated.(xiv) In G.Dharani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by theSecretary to Government, Industries Department reported in (2003-3- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ L.W.777), this Court has considered the issue as to whether afterTamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997came into force, the State Government is empowered to acquire landsunder the Central Act. It was held in para 4 as follows:“4. A plain reading of the above said Sectiondiscloses that after the Act has come into force, theacquisition proceedings shall be initiated in the eventfor the purpose of setting up of Industrial Complex onlyunder the provisions of the said Act and not under theCentral Act 1 of 1894. Of course, under Section 23 ofthe Act, certain proceedings which were initiated priorto the Act came into force, were excluded from thepurview of this Act.”93. The learned Advocate General relied upon the followingjudgments to substantiate his submissions:(i) The Supreme Court in Bhola Shanker Vs. The District LandAcquisition Officer, Aligharh ((1973) 2 SCC 59), while dealing withthe acquisition under the Central Act 1/1894, has held that whenthe notice under Section 9(3) was given to the original owner andnot to the subsequent purchaser after Section 4(1), the same washeld as sufficient notice.(ii) It was held in W.B. Housing Board and Others Vs.Brijendra Prasad Gupta ((1997) 6 SCC 207) by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt while dealing with West Bengal Land (Requisition andAcquisition) Act, 1948, that in cases where a person has alreadysold the land to another person prior to requisitions, but name ofthe purchaser has not been entered in the Records of Right, despitemutation, service of order to the previous owner was held validholding that the District Collector has no obligation to makeroving enquiry about the ownership of the land. The relevant para 8is as follows:“8. The principal question that arises forconsideration is if it were the writ petitioners who wereentitled to notice under Section 3(2) of the Act or thatthis provision stood complied with by serving notice onthe recorded owners of land in the Record of Rightsmaintained under Section 50 of the West Bengal LandReforms Act. We are of the view that the provisions ofservice of notice stood complied when notices were servedon the persons recorded as owners in the Record ofRights. Record of Rights is a statutory documentmaintained by the prescribed authority under Section 50of the Act and it is a notice to the public at large asto who are the owners of the land in the records of theauthorities. That would be the reason as to why the writpetitioners themselves applied for mutation of the landsin their names in the year 1990 when in fact they had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased the same in 1988. Under Section 3 of the WestBengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Act overrides otherlaws if there is anything inconsistent with what isstated in the Act. Section 50 of the Act provides formaintenance of the Record of Rights by the prescribedauthority by incorporating therein the changes on accountof mutation of names as a result of transfer orinheritance or partition, exchange etc. Under sub-section(9) of Section 51-A every entry in the Record of Rightsshall be presumed to be correct until it is proved thatthe entry in the Record of Rights is incorrect,proceedings for that, however, will have to be initiatedunder the Act itself. Otherwise there is everypresumption about the correctness of the Record ofRights. As noted above mutation was effected in September1995. The Division Bench has observed that the Collectorwould have been aware of the pendency of the applicationsof the writ petitioners for mutation of lands in theirnames when the same were pending in his office. The Benchin effect observed that it was a case where the righthand did not know what the left hand was doing. Thisobservation sounds good, but knowing the working of thegovernment offices it appears to have no place. Ofcourse, the Collector could have asked for a report fromthe prescribed authority concerned if any application formutation of the land was pending with him. But that wouldbe expecting too much from the Collector. It is no partof the duty of the Collector to make a roving inquiryinto ownership of the persons. We are of the opinion thatthe requirements of the law were met when notices wereserved upon the recorded owners as per the Record ofRights. Again we do not think in a case like the presentone, it is for the Collector to make enquiries from theregistration office to find out if the land had sincebeen sold by the recorded owners. In Winky Dilawari v.Amritsar Improvement Trust this Court observed that thepublic authorities were not expected to go on makingenquiries in the Sub-Registrar’s office as to who wouldbe the owner of the property. The Collector in thepresent case was thus justified in relying on theofficial record being the Record of Rights as to who werethe owners of the land sought to be requisitioned andprudence did not require any further enquiry to be made.We are therefore of the view that notices were properlyserved under Section 3(2) of the Act on the owners of theland.”The said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when appliedto the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is seen https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the records that in fact the respondents have taken steps toverify from the Sub-Registrar's Office about the particulars of theowners in respect of various survey numbers apart from referring tothe revenue records and gave notice to the persons in whose namethe property stood as on date and therefore, it cannot be said thatnotice given in these cases are not valid.(iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Nandatai Vs. Stateof Maharashtra ((1996) 6 SCC 407), while dealing with the CentralAct, 1894 that holder on record was given notice and heard andomission to give notice to the subsequent purchaser would notvitiate the enquiry under Section 5 of the Central Act 1/1894. Therelevant portion is as follows:“1.....The omission to give notice to the petitionerwho subsequently became owner of the property does notvitiate the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A nor isthe enquiry violative of sub-section (2) of Section 5-A.The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing tointerfere with the declaration published under Section 6and notification published under Section 4.”(iv) The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inAhuja Industries Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka ((2003) 5 SCC 365).It was further held in that case that the District Collector is notobliged to make a roving enquiry about the ownership of the land.The relevant para 13 is as follows:-“13. It could be seen from the above order thatservice of notice on a person shown as owner or occupierin the record-of-rights is sufficient even though thesaid person had already sold the land prior to the saidnotification unless it is substantiated otherwise thatthe authorities concerned had knowledge of the rights orinterest of any person other than those found recorded asowner/occupier in the revenue records. It is further heldthat the Collector is not obliged to make a rovingenquiry about the ownership of the land. If the name ofthe purchaser is not yet entered in the record-of-rightsthen non-service on such a person does not vitiate theacquisition proceedings. Admittedly, the appellant hadnot got his name entered in the revenue records as owneror occupant of the said land and therefore he could notcomplain about non-service of notice on him nor about thefailure to grant a hearing to him. Contention that as perprovision of the Land Revenue Act there was no obligationon his part to either inform the Revenue Authoritiesabout the sale in his favour or to request them totransfer the katha in his name cannot stand as it has notbeen brought on record with reference to any pleadingswith supporting documents that in fact the appellant had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made payment for making the necessary entries in therecord-of-rights and the register in his name at the timeof registration of the sale deed in his favour. Thisapart, failure to make entries on the part of the RevenueAuthorities by itself would not cast any obligation onthe authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiryand try to locate an owner who may have subsequentlypurchased the land from the previous owner. Failure onthe part of the Revenue Authority to make entry in theregister of mutation in favour of the subsequent ownerwould not render the acquisition proceedings bad in lawon account of non-issuance of notice inviting objectionsto the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.”(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. AllIndia Manufacturers Organisation ((2006) 4 SCC 683), while dealingwith the provisions of Land Acquisition and Requisition – KarnatakaIndustrial Areas Development Act, 1966, has considered “NoPrejudice” theory and held in para 75 as follows:“75. It is difficult to accept that the landownerswere not aware of the purpose of the acquisition nor canit be accepted that they were unable to file theirobjections on this ground. As a matter of fact, as theHigh Court has concurrently found, they did file theirobjections before the competent authorities. We do notsee any prejudice caused to them as a result of thewordings of the notification of acquisition. Theauthority concerned also heard them on the objectionsfiled after affording them an opportunity to file suchobjections under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act. Thus,there is no substance in the contention of the appellantsthat the notification was vague and hence that the Statedid not comply with the principles of natural justice.”(vi) Regarding the mode of publication, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has held that when once the mode specified for giving noticeis complied with, the onus is on the persons notified to prove thatthey were not aware of the subject matter of the notice. That wasin Rai Vimal Krishna Vs. State of Bihar ((2003) 6 SCC 401), whereinwhile dealing with law of Municipal Taxes the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas held in paras 26 and 27 as follows:“26. The third submission of the appellants relatesto the mode of publication of the assessment lists. Thatthe mode of publication is a procedural provision isself-evident. But is it a mandatory provision? The HighCourt’s finding as to the nature of the provision forpublication under sub-section (1) of Section 149 issomewhat contradictory. While holding that the manner ofpublication was mandatory and had to be complied with in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ terms thereof, in a subsequent portion of the judgment,it was held that it was a mere irregularity which couldbe waived. As we read sub-section (1) of Section 149, theChief Executive Officer is bound to give public notice ofthe assessment list. The word “shall” makes that clear.However, the word “shall” does not qualify the nextphrase which is separated from the words “public notice”by a comma. The phrase separated is “by beat of drum andby placards posted in conspicuous places throughout Patna…”. Generally speaking, the object of giving a notice isto draw the attention of the persons sought to beaffected to the matter notified. The purpose ofspecifying a particular mode of giving notice is to raisea legal presumption against such person, of knowledge ofthe subject of the notice. In other words, once the modespecified for giving notice is complied with, the onus ison the persons notified to prove that they were not awareof the subject-matter of the notice. There is otherwiseno special sanctity given to the mode of service ofnotice. The appellants have contended that even thoughowners were served with individual notices under Section149(2), unless publication was made in the mannerprovided in Section 149(1) the occupants who were liableto pay water tax and latrine tax would be seriouslyaffected and would not have an opportunity of challengingthe imposition of the tax on them. Incidentally, in theobjections filed by the appellants their contention isthat the holdings owned by them were not liable topayment of latrine tax or water tax because neither ofthe services were available. However, the matter has tobe decided as a principle and not with reference to theappellants’ case.27. Nobody disputes that publication and the givingof notice to persons likely to be affected by theassessment list is a must. The appellants have admittedpublication of the assessment lists in three newspapers.It is not their case that such publication did not servethe purpose of notifying those who might be affected bythe assessment lists, of their existence. Indeed itappears to us that the requirement to notify people bybeat of drum is an anachronism which appears to beinappropriate in the present day and age in a large citylike Patna. The High Court’s apprehension that“holding this provision as directory islikely to cause confusion and mischief infuture and it is not for this Court tosubstitute the wisdom of the legislature withits own by holding that notice by newspaper https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will be sufficient in place of notice of thespot by beat of drum and placards”is unfounded both in law and in fact. It is an elementaryprinciple of interpretation that words in statutoryprovisions take their colour from their context andobject, keeping pace with the time when the word is beingconstrued. When or where no other means of effectivepublication is available, no doubt, announcing theassessment list by beat of drum and by displayingplacards would have to be complied with. Where equallyefficacious, if not better, modes of publication areavailable, it would be ridiculous to insist on anobsolete form of publication as if it were a ritual. Hadthe High Court found that publication by newspapers wasnot effective enough to notify the public, the assessmentlist could not be given effect to unless publication wasproperly made. There is no such finding. On the otherhand, publication through newspapers is now an acceptedform of giving general notice. Therefore, we have nohesitation in holding that the portion of Section 149(1)which deals with the manner of publication, as opposed tothe requirement for publication per se, is directory.Since there has been sufficient compliance in effectingthe intention of the legislature to give notice to thepublic at large in the city of Patna, we cannot hold thatthe assessment lists prepared on the basis of the 1993Rules are required to be set aside.”Applying the analogy to the facts of the present case, publicnotice given under Form-B, especially in the circumstances that theentire village of Oragadam and Sennakuppam are sought to beacquired, cannot be said to be not proper and that some of thepetitioners were not aware.(vii) While dealing with the provisions of the Central Act1/1894 along with the Rules made thereunder, the Full Bench of thisCourt in Sharp Tools, Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore Vs. The Stateof Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment reported in (2006(4) CTC 785) has laid down variousprinciples for the purpose of enquiry under the Central Act 1/1894which is as follows:-“12.....(I) Objections to the acquisition are to besubmitted by the persons interested in the lands within30 days from the date of publication of the Notificationas provided by Sub-Section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act.(II) The 30 days' period is to be reckoned from thelast mode of publication as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act.(III) In all cases where objections are filed within30 days as provided under Section 5-A(I); hearing theobjectors and Department/Company and further enquiry are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mandatory.(IV) The Collector shall have to fix the date ofhearing the objections. He has to give notice in Form-Bto the Objector as well as to the Department. TheDepartment or Company may file a statement by way ofanswer to the objections before the date fixed by theCollector. The Department may also depute theirRepresentation to attend the enquiry.(V) If objections are not filed within the time, butthe person interested/land owner appears before theCollector pursuant to the Notice in Form-B and makes anyobjection orally, it is incumbent on the part of theCollector to hear the objector, however, conductingfurther enquiry is not obligatory but it is only adiscretion of the Collector. To put it clear, 'personalhearing' is mandatory and 'further enquiry' isdiscretionary depending upon the submission of objectionswithin 30 days of the last mode of the publication.(VI) Rule 4(b) is mandatory and to be followedessentially. In terms of Rule 4(b), Form-B is only aNotice to the objectors and the Department to appear forthe hearing and it is not a notice for filing theobjections.” In my view, the said principles which are applicable to the CentralAct 1/1894 cannot be applied to Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999.94. In view of the above said facts and circumstances andtotality of the situation that there has been substantivecompliance of service of notice, conduct of hearing and also takinginto consideration the larger industrial development of the Stateand on the basis of the Object of the Act, apart from the fact thatout of 6,500 land owners, except 16 writ petitioners (since thewrit petitioner in W.P.No.29575 of 2007 has accepted thecompensation and the said writ petition is dismissed asinfructuous) all other persons have either accepted thecompensation or surrendered the lands by accepting the acquisitionproceedings, I am of the considered view that the petitioners inthese writ petitions are not entitled for any relief as claimedfor. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and the same aredismissed. However, in respect of cases where specific plea israised about the occupation of specified portions for religiouspurposes or small scale industry purpose, it is always open to thesaid petitioners to make proper representation to the Governmenteither for the purpose of withdrawal of the lands from acquisitionproceedings or for any other relief. In that case, it is alwaysopen to the Government to consider the same in accordance with lawand on merits. It is also made clear that in cases where thepetitioners are already carrying on some industrial activities, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which may be referred to as 'industrial purpose' under the TamilNadu Act 10/1999, it is always open to the said petitioners to makeproper representation to SIPCOT after the acquisition proceedingsare over, for the purpose of allotment. In such event, it is forthe SIPCOT as well as the Government to consider their case inaccordance with law and on merits and pass appropriate orders.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Nocosts. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.kkTo1. The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Chairman and Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai – 600 008.3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.4. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Collector's Office Compound, Kancheepuram.5. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), SIPCOT Oragadam Industrial Expansion Scheme Unit I, Alagu Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.6. The Special Tahsildar (LA)SIPCOT Oragadam Expension SchemePhase -4, Sriperumbudur https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The secretary to Government of TamilnaduCommercial tax DepartmentFort St. George,Chenani-91 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 275002 ccs to M/s. R. Karunagaran, advocate, sr. 27482, 2748111 cc to Mr.S.D.S. Philip, Advocate, sr. 27456, 274571 cc to Mr.C. Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr. 275221 cc to mr.M. Devaraj, Advocate, sr. 275311 cc to Mr.P. Seshadrai, Advocate, Sr. 274601 cc to Mr.S. Radhakrishnan, Advocate, SR. 27491W.P.Nos.16922, 29294, 29090, 29113,29707, 29708, 29709, 29710, 30019,30020, 30021, 29575, 30255, 30256,33294, 30062 and 32290 of 2007 andConnected Miscellaneous PetitionsKSK , NM (CO)kk,km 10/6