High Court · 2025

WP No. 46509 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 46509 of 2025AND WMP NOS. 51874 & 51877 OF 20251. M/s.Arigaa Crane Services Private LimitedRep. By Its Directors Mangaiyarkkarasi, Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram-602 105. and another2. SANKARASEKARVallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram-602 105.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Chairman And Managing DirectorState Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Limited (sipcot) 19-a, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.2.The District CollectorKancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 631 501.3.The Special TahsildarLand Acquisition, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 1054.The Estate OfficerSipcot Industrial Park, Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 105Respondent(s)PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 2025the impugned acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 06.01.2009 granting administrative sanction for establishing an Industrial park and preliminary notifications under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997and sub-sequential Gazette notification No.447 G.O.Ms. No.156, 158 industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 29.11.2011 issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) quash the same as arbitrary and illegalFor Petitioner(s):Mr.S.Silambanan, Sr.counsel, for M/s.Nagarjun SFor Respondent:Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGPORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 06.01.20092. Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner, being unaware of the acquisition proceedings, had purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 16.03.2011, which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 2025much before the final acquisition notice dated 29.11.2011. Aggrieved over the said final acquisition notice, a writ petition in W.P.No.6993 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2014, by directing the petitioner to make a representation before the District Collector for allotment of land. Pursuant to the said order, a representation was filed by the petitioner. However, the said representation was not at all considered in a proper manner. Under these circumstances, now, the respondents had issued an eviction order dated 28.07.2025 against the petitioner.5. Further, he would submit that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to statutory time limits under the provisions of law and hence, the aforesaid eviction order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the acquisition Notification dated 29.11.2011 issued under Section 3(1) and the subsequent award.6. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the aforesaid eviction order dated 28.07.2025 was already challenged before this Court in WP.No.31483 of 2025. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025, whereby a specific direction was issued to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within a period of 2 weeks, failing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 2025which, the respondent concerned shall take the assistance of jurisdictional police for evicting the petitioner and taking over the possession. In spite of the same, now, the petitioner had once again approached this Court by challenging the Notification issued by the respondents, which is not proper. 7. Further, they would submit that since the land was acquired for the purpose of plug and play project, the allotment of land to the petitioner will not come into picture. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.8. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.9. In the case on hand, the acquisition proceedings, in respect of the subject property, was initiated as early as in the year 2011 and the award was passed in the year 2020. During an earlier occasion, the Notification, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, dated 29.11.2011 was challenged by the petitioner vide W.P.No.6993 of 2014 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2014 by directing the petitioner to file an application for allotment of land. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 202510. Thereafter, the respondents had passed the eviction order dated 28.07.2025 and proceeded to take over the possession of the subject land. The said eviction order was also challenged by the petitioner in WP.No.31483 of 2025, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2025, whereby this Court specifically directed the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within a period of two weeks, failing which, the respondent concerned shall take the assistance of jurisdictional police for evicting the petitioner and taking over the possession. Under these circumstances, now the present petition was filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings dated 06.01.2009 and the Notification dated 29.11.2011. 11. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner keeps on approaching this Court by challenging the acquisition proceedings citing one reason or another. As stated above, in the aforesaid writ petition, which was filed against the eviction order, this Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025, had clearly held that there is no substance in the claim raised by the petitioner and accordingly, directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. In spite of the same, once again, the petitioner had challenged the Notification issued by the respondents. In such case, it is clear that the present petition was filed by the petitioner only with an intention to delay the acquisition proceedings, which is not proper. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 202512. As far as the request made by the petitioner for allotment of land is concerned, it was submitted by the respondents that the land was acquired for plug and play project and hence, the allotment of land to the petitioner will not come into picture. Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to give priority to the petitioner’s application for allotment of land, if it is other than the plug and play project.13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.28-11-2025nsaIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 2025To1.The Chairman And Managing DirectorState Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Limited (sipcot) 19-a, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.2.The District CollectorKancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 631 501.3.The Special TahsildarLand Acquisition, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 1054.The Estate OfficerSipcot Industrial Park, Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 105 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 46509 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.nsaWP No. 46509 of 2025AND WMP NOS. 51874 & 51877 OF 202528-11-2025