@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. Both writ petitions came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon''ble Chief Justice vide order dated 19.1.2012.
2. Both writ petitions are filed by one and the same persons. The prayer in the first writ petition is to challenge the notification issued u/s 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (for short TALIP Act) by the first respondent published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette, dated 13.7.2010 in respect of the petitioners'' land in Survey Nos.182/1A, 182/1B, 182/1C, 182/1D, 182/1E, 182/2 and
187/3 and the consequential E-Form notice issued by the third respondent, i.e., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, SIPCOT Cheyyar
Expansion Scheme, dated 18.8.2010. The second writ petition was filed to set aside the Government''s Gazette notification, dated 14.7.2010 in
respect of the petitioners'' land in Survey Nos.188/1B2B, 188/3 and 188/5 and the consequential E-Form notice issued by the third respondent,
dated 18.8.2010.
3. When the writ petitions came up for admission on 29.09.2010, this court directed notice to the respondents. Pending notice, in the application
for interim stay, an interim stay was granted on 01.10.2010 by stating that without making any hearing, the respondents had passed the order u/s
4(2) and hence it is vitiated. Therefore, the interim stay was granted. Subsequently, on 09.09.2011, the interim stay was extended until further
orders. Further on 30.09.2011, the interim stay was made absolute. On notice from this court, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai has filed a
counter affidavit, dated 19.01.2012 justification the acquisition. The second respondent SIPCOT has also filed a counter affidavit, dated
29.8.2011.
4. The two writ petitioners are the daughter of one Saminathan. Though initially they filed the writ petitions through him as their Power Agent,
subsequently an application was filed in M.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking permission to delete the name of the Power Agent. Accordingly, that
application was ordered on 27.9.2010.
5. It is seen from the records that the two petitioners'' father was doing granite quarrying in the subject mater of land during the year 1986-99. The
granite business was closed. The original agreement the father of the petitioners had with the District Collector, North Arcot was for quarrying for
a period of three years from 1986-89. After stoppage of the business in the year 1989, the petitioners'' father did not renew his agreement.
According to the respondents, the quarrying was stopped without notice to the District Collector and that the condition of quarrying licence was
also violated. The lands of the petitioners covered by the two writ petitions were situated in Mathur village, Cheyyar Taluk. The lands were said to
be acquired for expansion of SIPCOT Industrial complex, which included both patta and poramboke lands.
6. The State Government had issued administrative sanction by G.O.Ms.No.281, Industries SIPCOT Department, dated 05.12.2007 for
acquiring the lands under the TALIP Act. The Special District Revenue Officer, SIPCOT by proceedings, dated 11.3.2008 had allocated an
extent of 123.75.5 hectares for land acquisition in the said village. A statutory Form-A notice was given u/s 3(2) for each of the owners of the land
by registered post and their acknowledgments were also obtained. Subsequently, publication of notice in Form-B was issued on 10.02.2009
calling for objections from the land owners and the interested persons within 30 days. A local publication was also made in two daily newspapers
one in English and one in Tamil. An enquiry u/s 3(2) was conducted by the fourth respondent District Collector.
7. The two writ petitioners'' family were residing outside Tamil Nadu. The first petitioner was employed as an Export Manager in a company. The
second writ petitioner was working as a Marketing Manager in a Multi National Company. The petitioners'' land were situated in the midst of the
scheme. The objection raised by the petitioners for acquisition was referred to for the opinion of the SIPCOT. Subsequently, their objections were
rejected. A notification u/s 3(1) was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 13.7.2010. It was at this stage, the petitioners''
father started sending representation that he had applied for quarrying licence in respect of the survey lands, where the black granite deposits are
available and that since there is scope or exporting the said granite to outside Country, the acquisition for industrial purpose need not be proceeded
with. On receipt of the representation, the District Collector sent a communication to the SIPCOT dated 21.1.2010 stating that the proposal for
acquisition of land may be dropped as the petitioners'' father was interested in doing quarrying work. Based upon that letter, the petitioners sent a
further letter to the Special Tahsildar, i.e., the third respondent. Notwithstanding the same, a gazette notification was issued on 13.7.2010 in terms
of Section 3 of the TALIP Act for acquiring the land for Cheyyar Industrial Expansion Scheme by SIPCOT.
8. Subsequent to the gazette notification, a notification u/s 4(2) of the TALIP Act was issued directing the petitioners to surrender possession of
lands to the District Collector within 30 days. The names of the petitioners were found place in the said notification. It was thereafter, the
petitioners'' father claiming to be the Proprietor of one M/s.EMGEEKE Mining Corporation sent a letter to the second respondent Chairman and
Managing Director, SIPCOT dated 31.8.2010 stating that he felt sorry for not delivering possession at any point of time as he had mined out
several tonnes of granite stones worth Rs.50 lakhs from the quarry land at great expenses and that they are lying in the quarry land. It will take six
months to obtain necessary permission and to remove the stones. He has no other places to store the quarrying materials. Hence he cannot deliver
possession. Already, they had spent Rs.1.5 crores to develop the quarry to a depth of 60 feet. The loss of revenue by preventing them from the
use of mineral wealth is estimated at Rs.30 crores. If the granite processing machinaries in their land are to be disposed of due to land acquisition, it
will further cause a loss of Rs.3 crores. Inspite of these, the SIPCOT is very particular to take the quarry land, they are welcome to do so after
compensating for the loss setting out above. In the letter it was also stated that they had already met the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
personally on various occasions and explained to him the genuineness of the land. It was also stated by him that the land to an extent of 2.65
hectares belonged to his two daughters who are the petitioners herein. They have authorised him to deal with the acquisition matter in a stamped
paper. They were operating the quarry from 1990 to 2005. The District Collector in his letter, dated 7.4.2010 stated that the quarry is in 60 feet
deep and waterlogged to a depth of 30 feet and had recommended that the land was unfit for constructing any building and also requested for
deletion of the said land from the land acquisition. Immediately after sending the representation, even without waiting for any reply, the writ
petitions came to be filed on 16.9.2010. In these writ petitions they have challenged the notification issued u/s 3(1) in respect of their lands in
various survey numbers and the consequential E-Form notice issued by the third respondent, dated 18.8.2010.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the SIPCOT, it was stated that the quarrying licence in the said place was given only for a period of three years,
i.e, from 1986 to 1989. The petitioners'' father had stopped quarrying the same. After stopping the quarrying, the petitioners'' father did not renew
the agreement. Hence their attempt to enter into a fresh agreement with the Government on the basis of their father will not arise. There was no
renewal of agreement from the Government for getting quarrying license. No details were furnished regarding the granite quarry by the petitioners''
father. The petitioners'' father was bound to pay Rs.200/- per cubic meter for quarrying the granite. Because of this reason, no details were
furnished. A final verification of the land was conducted on 05.10.2009 and 06.10.2009. It was found that due to excavation of quarry in these
lands, big pits were formed and they were filled with water. The unused rocks and quarry wastes were dumped in the lands for a long time. The
lands which were acquired are in the midst of the scheme conceived by the SIPCOT. The facts raised by the petitioners were duly recorded by the
authorities. It was also stated that such quarrying unit cannot be allowed within the industrial complex to be set up by the SIPCOT. Any unit to be
put up around the area will be greatly affected if quarrying is allowed. The objections raised by the erstwhile land owners were considered by the
SIPCOT. They were not satisfied with the objections. These facts were duly intimated to the acquiring authority. Since the lands were acquired for
public cause for implementation of the policy decision of the State Government, the petitioners cannot have any objection over the land acquisition.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, it was stated that the notification u/s 3(1) of the TALIP Act was issued and published in
the Government gazette on 13.7.2010 in respect of various survey numbers. Even before the same, the State Government had granted
administrative sanction for setting up the SIPCOT complex and an authorization was given to acquire lands to an extent of 716.88.5 hectares of
patta lands as well as 214.52.5 hectares of poramboke lands for expansion of SIPCOT Industrial complex. The Special District Revenue Officer,
SIPCOt, Cheyyar by proceedings, dated 11.3.2008 had allocated 123.75.5 hectares for land acquisition in Mathur village in five blocks. A
statutory Form-A notice u/s 3(2) to each of the land owners were issued through registered post and acknowledgments were obtained by them.
Subsequently Form-""B"" publication of notice was also issued on 10.02.2009 calling for objections within 30 days. The said notice was published
in the local offices in Cheyyar area on 19.02.2009. A further publicity was given by beating tom tom. An advertisement was also given in ""The
Financial Express"" and also in ""Dinakaran"" Tamil daily Vellore edition on 26.02.2009. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted u/s 3(2) by the
District Collector, Tiruvannamalai.
11. It was also stated that in order to consider the objections, a field verification was made on two days, i.e., 05.10.2009 and 06.10.2009. It was
found that the petitioners'' family do not reside in Tamil Nadu. The first writ petitioner was employed as an Export Manager in an ISO certified
company and the second writ petitioner was working as a Marketing Manager in a multi national company. While the petitioners'' father did the
quarrying business during the years 1986-89 on quarry licence, he closed down the business. Thereafter, no quarrying was done in the said land. It
was also found that the lands are situated within the scheme area. Therefore, the objections raised by the land owners were rejected. A notification
u/s 3(1) was issued which was also published in the Government gazette on 13.7.2010. Therefore, the entire procedures for acquisition have been
followed. It was further stated that if such quarrying activities are done within the scheme area, it will damage the SIPCOT unit.
12. With reference to the major contention raised by the petitioners, i.e. There was recommendation by the District Collector for excluding the
lands, in the counter affidavit it was stated that so far mineral wealth available in the land was concerned, neither the petitioners nor their father are
the owners of those mineral wealth and they were the properties of the State Government. Unless permitted, the petitioners are not entitled to do
any quarrying work. The lands are dry lands under the revenue classification and that no exemption can be granted.
13. With reference to the recommendation made by the District Collector, the very same District Collector in paragraph 19 of the counter had
stated as follows:
19... Even it is assumed true that this respondent recommended exempting these lands from acquisition, the satisfaction of the Government and the
view of the SIPCOT Authorities being end-users of the acquired lands will prevail over the views of the other respondents. Besides, the
petitioners'' lands are situated in the midst of the scheme area and it was felt by the requisitioning department that if the above lands are exempted,
the scheme will be affected and consequently the writ petitioners'' objection was rejected. All these facts have been duly taken into account
appropriately prior to issuance of Government Notification and upon due satisfaction the Government has issued the notification which now sought
to be challenged by the writ petitioners. The acquisition has been made for a bonafide public purpose under the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997.
14. With reference to the fact that the lands may not be used for constructing building, in paragraph 23, the District Collector had observed as
follows:
23...It is incorrect to say that the land is unfit for construction purpose and the same is hereby denied. The condition of the writ petitioners'' lands
could be suitably changed by applying modern technologies to make it fit for construction purpose and it is the concern of the SIPCOT Authorities,
being the requesting body and not that of the writ petitioners herein.
15. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that the District Collector having earlier recommended stating the
correct details, cannot go back on his own recommendation and that their case should be considered by the State Government. In the name of the
acquisition for industrial purpose, they cannot defeat the petitioners'' right to carry on another industrial programme in the same land. Hence this
court must strike down the notification issued for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and allow them to carry on the industrial programme.
16. In the present case, it must be noted that under the TALIP Act, the power of the State Government to exercise its power has been delegated
in terms of Section 23-A of the TALIP Act. The notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue, dated 02.09.2005 and published in the
Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 02.09.2005 in Issue No.199 reads as follows:
No. II(2) / REV / 716 (d)/2005.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that all the powers exercisable by the Government
under said Act except the powers excluded in the said section 23-A shall be exercised by the Collector of the district concerned.
(2)The Notification hereby issued shall come into force on the 2nd day of September, 2005.
17. Therefore, the fact that the District Collector, whose letter the petitioners very much relied upon, had himself filed a sworn affidavit before this
court stating that he had considered all the relevant facts and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the lands cannot be exempted, cannot be
found fault with and that there is no illegality found. A copy of the letter dated 6.4.2010 sent by the District Collector to the SIPCOT was also
produced in which the District Collector himself had asked for the opinion of the SIPCOT with reference to the petitioners'' request and the
SIPCOT being the requisitioning authority has given its reply. Once a notification is issued u/s 3(1), the lands vest with the Government free from
all encumbrances as found in Section 4(1) of the Act. It is only even after notice u/s 4(2) if the land owner failed to deliver the possession, the
Collector or any person authorised by him can take possession of the lands. For that purpose, they can also use the force as found u/s 4(3).
18. In this case by a valid notification, the lands stood vested with the State Government. The petitioners'' communication to Section 4(2) proceeds
as if the petitioners have choice in resisting the delivery of possession of lands. This court do not find any case is made out to stall the respondents
from proceeding with the acquisition. All that the land owners in the present case are entitled to receive the compensation in terms of Section 6, for
which a determination will have to be made u/s 7 of the Act. It is thereafter, if there is any grievance over the amount of compensation, the Act
further provides for a reference in terms of Section 8.
19. Under the said circumstances, the contentions raised by the petitioners to the contrary are hereby rejected. This court do not find any
procedural flaws in the matter of land acquisition. Further the District Collector, whose recommendation itself was relied upon by the petitioners,
himself had rejected the request of the petitioners by giving cogent reasons in the form of an affidavit. Hence both writ petitions will stand
dismissed. No costs.
