✦ High Court of India · 15 Sep 2025

Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 15 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

15 Sep 2025

Bench

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.ANDC.SARAVANAN

Length

1,717 words

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997

WA No. 1743 of 2022Gandhi Nagar, Avadi, Chennai- 542.State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT)Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8.Respondent(s)WA No. 1745 of 20221. The Government of Tamil NaduRep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Secretriat, Chennai-9.2.The District CollectorKancheepuram Dist, Kancheepuram.3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)Unit 5, SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram Dist.Appellant(s)Vs1. B.JayaramanS/o.Balu Naidu, No.10, First Floor, Adhithanar St, Gandhi Nagar, Avadi Chennai-54.2.State Industrial Promotion https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT)Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8Respondent(s)WA No. 1744 of 20221. The Government Of Tamil NaduRep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Secretriat, Chennai.2.The District CollectorKancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.3.The Special Tahsildar (land Acquisition)Unit 5, SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram Dist.Appellant(s)Vs1. B.J.Exports Pvt.LtdRep.by its Director B.Jayaraman, No.10, First Floor, Adhithanar Street, Gandhi Nagar, Avadi, Chennai- 54.2.State Industrial Promotion CorporationRep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022Respondent(s)WA No. 1743 of 2022PRAYERTo allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in WP.No.5873 of 2012 dated 23.01.2013 and thus render justice.WA No. 1745 of 2022PRAYERTo allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in WP.No. 5875 of 2012 dated 23.01.2013.WA No. 1744 of 2022PRAYERTo allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.5874 of 2012 dated 23.01.2013.For all petitionsFor Appellant(s):Mr.P.SathishAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Murali for R1Mr.Abishek Murthy for SIPCOT (R2)COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)The common order dated 23.01.2013 passed in the batch of writ petitions came to be challenged in the present intra-court appeal. 2. The State is the appellant before this Court. The respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022preferred writ petitions challenging the notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), mainly on the ground that the District Collector conducted an enquiry under Sub-Section (2) to Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act is to be set aside. In other words, the respondents would contend that the Collector has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry and the Act contemplates the Government to conduct enquiry. The Writ Court considered the issue and made a finding that the Collector for the purpose of Section 3(2) is given delegated power to the cause notice and call for objections. This is a specific delegation. It does not empower the Collector to hear and pass orders under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Writ Court has proceeded on the basis that Section 3(1) notification was also issued by the Collector. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding was set aside. 3. The Writ Court placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of J & K Housing Board Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul1 and V.G.P.Housing (P) Ltd Vs. The Secretary to 12011 10 SCC 714 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022Government (W.P.No.2055 and 2056 of 2010 dated 10.07.2012). In which, the Apex Court held that "It is settled law that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefore in the Act". The Writ Court proceeded on the basis that both enquiry under Section 3(2) of the Act and notification under Section 3(1) of the Act had been issued by the District Collector and therefore, the entire acquisition is contrary to the procedures contemplated under the Act.4. The State would submit that the facts are otherwise in the present case. Section 3(2) enquiry was conducted by the District Collector as contemplated under the Act. Based on the enquiry conducted by the District Collector, the Government issued notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity, and the Writ Court has committed an error in appreciating the facts and consequently, the present writ appeal is to be allowed.5. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022the Collector has not applied his mind, while sending the proposal for issuance of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of the Government. Application of mind with reference to the facts are contemplated under the Act, which has not been adopted. Thus, the Writ Court is right in allowing the writ petitions and consequently, the writ appeal is to be rejected.6. This Court heard the parties to the lis on hand.7. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows,“3. Power to acquire land.(1) If, at any time in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for any industrial purposes, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required.(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall, call upon the owner and any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land, to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed.(3) The Government may pass an order under sub-section (1) after hearing and considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or person interested.”8. The procedures contemplated under Sub-section (2) to Section 3 is a pre-condition for issuance of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. Two separate notices were issued on 10.09.2009 in respect of the entire extent of the lands sought to be acquired.9. After providing an opportunity and conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) to Section 3 of the Act, a notification under Section 3(1) was issued by the Government and it was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 13.12.2011 and 16.12.2011, followed by the possession order dated 04.02.2012 and 11.02.2012.10. Question arises about the delegation of powers as contemplated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022under the Act. Section 23(A) of the Act, provides delegation of powers and reads as follows,“23A. [ Delegation of powers. [Inserted by the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 2005).]- The Government may, by notification, direct that all the powers under this Act except the powers,-(1)to issue notice under sub-section (1) of section 3; (2)to withdraw the land from acquisition under the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 4; and(3)to make rules under section 25,shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercised by the Collector.]”11. Except the issuance of the notice under Section 3(1), withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings and to make rules under Section 25, all other powers and the procedures to be followed under the Act can be delegated by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23(A) of the Act. In this context, the Tamil Nadu Government notification dated 02.09.2005 issued in G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LA)(1), dated 02.09.2005 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022reads as follows,12. Therefore, the powers conferred on the Government under Sub-section (2) to Section 3 has been delegated and may be exercised by the District Collector under the Act. In the present case, the enquiry as contemplated under Sub-section (2) to Section 3 was conducted by the District Collector by issuing a public notice and thereafter, based on the proposal submitted by the District Collector, the Government issued 3(1) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022notification, which is in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Writ Court has misinterpreted the scope of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act as well as the delegation powers conferred on the Government under Section 23(A)(1) of the Act. 13. Consequently, the common order passed in W.P.Nos.5873 to 5875 of 2012, dated 23.01.2013 are set aside. The reliance placed by the respondents in respect of the order passed in W.A.No.1797 of 2017 dated 24.11.2022 is not applicable. The facts are distinguishable and therefore, the said judgment is of no avail to the respondents to sustain the common writ order impugned. That apart, in the said order, the proceedings has been considered by the Court and facts in the present case are since distinguished, the said judgment has no application.14. The common writ orders made in W.P.Nos.5873 to 5875 of 2012 dated 23.01.2013 are set aside. The present writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.15. The appellants are bound to follow all further proceedings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022contemplated under the Act for awarding just compensation under law to the land owners. The land owners are at liberty to submit their representation/objections, if any to the competent authority, while quantifying the compensation or for enhancement or otherwise.(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.SARAVANAN J.)15-09-2025gdIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022WA No. 1743 of 2022To1.B.JayaramanS/o.Balu Naidu, No.10, First Floor, Adhithanar Street, Gandhi Nagar, Avadi, Chennai- 542.State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT)Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8.WA No. 1745 of 2022To1.B.JayaramanS/o.Balu Naidu, No.10, First Floor, Adhithanar St, Gandhi Nagar, Avadi Chennai-54.2.State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT)Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8WA No. 1744 of 2022To1.B.J.Exports Pvt.LtdRep.by its Director B.Jayaraman, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022No.10, First Floor, Adhithanar Street, Gandhi Nagar, Avadi, Chennai- 54.2.State Industrial Promotion CorporationRep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai- 8. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 1743 of 2022S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.ANDC.SARAVANAN J.gdWA No. 1743 of 2022WA NO. 1745 OF 2022 and WA NO. 1744 OF 202215-09-20251/3

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Indian Penal Code