Madras High Court
Mrs.Saleema Zackria Hussain vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 April, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
and W.M.P.No.14671 of 2004
Mrs.Saleema Zackria Hussain ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary to the Government ,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)
SIPCOT Units,
Sriperumbudur.
4.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
(R4 suo motu impleaded in W.P.No.12555/2004 vide order dated 29.03.2022)
... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the
notification issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.379, Industries (MID-II)
dated 06.05.1999 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary No.361 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
07.05.1999 and consequential notification issued under Section 6(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O.Ms.No.620, Industries (MID-II) dated
29.07.1999 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary No.597 dated
29.07.1999 insofar as the lands of petitioner in S.F.No.166/1B and C
Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk is concerned and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner: Mr.B.Vishnu Chellayan for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For RR1 and 3 : Mr.R.P.Murugaraja
For RR3 and 4 : Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy
Order
This petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call
for the records relating to the notification issued by the 1st respondent insofar as
the lands of petitioner in S.F.No.166/1B and C, Sirumangadu Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk is concerned and quash the same
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of two
plots bearing plot nos.215 and 216 in the layout formed and known as VMR
Nagar, Phase I, measuring 4800 sq.ft in S.F.No.166/1-B and 1-C, Sirumangadu
Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. In the month of November 2003, the petitioner
came to know from the adjoining owners of the land that the respondents are
trying to take possession of his land under the guise of acquisition and on
enquiry, he was shocked to know that the 1st respondent is said to have issued a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 07.05.1999
and consequent to that, the 1st respondent is said to have issued a Declaration
under Section 6(1) of the Act, dated 29.07.1999, for the purpose of setting up of
industrial complex by SIPCOT and an award also appears to have been passed
under Section 11 of the Act in September 2001. It is alleged by the petitioner
that while determining the award, the petitioner was not issued with any notice
as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act and further a very palty sum had
been fixed by the respondent as compensation for acquiring his 4800 sq.ft of
land.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that throughout the acquisition
proceedings, the petitioner has not been served with any notice of the
acquisition proceedings and even in the notification and Declaration issued
under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act, the petitioner's name was not found and
thereby, the petitioner's name was not found and thereby, the petitioner has
issued a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and till date the respondents have not issued
any reply. The petitioner, aggrieved by the acquisition process, is constrained to
approach this Court by filing this petition and prays for quashment of the same.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
though the petitioner's land was acquired by invoking urgency clause by
dispensing Section 5A enquiry, the petitioner came to know about the
acquisition proceedings only in the year 2003, after a lapse of five years from
the date of notification. It appears that the land losers referred the matter under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Sub Judge, Kambam and the
learned Sub Judge fixed the compensation at Rs.5,384/- per cent with other
statutory benefits.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted
that immediately after knowing about the acquisition proceedings, the
petitioner had filed the writ petition and though possession was taken much
earlier, till date, the award copy was not furnished to the petitioner to enable
her to workout her remedy in the manner known to law. It is also pertinent to
mention that the petitioner is the wife of the former judge of this High Court
and she was denied fair compensation till date and prays for appropriate orders.
7. The learned Government Advocate submitted that while preparing
proposal under Section 4(1) of the said Act, it is found that the petitioner's land
measuring 0.04.46 hectares in plot no.215, 216 was registered in the name of
Sankaran Vagaiyara and though the petitioner purchased the plot nos.215, 216,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
she did not take any steps to sub divide her plot and to get her name entered in
the village records and though notice was issued to attend award enquiry, she
did not attend the same and the respondents, after conducting award enquiry,
issued the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, informing the compensation
amount of Rs.3,936/-. Further the learned Government Advocate submitted that
if there is any objections by the petitioner, she may seek reference under
Section 18 of the Act to refer her case for enhanced compensation.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
9. Though her possession was taken much earlier, it is the stand of
the petitioner that till date award copy has not been furnished to the petitioner
to enable her to workout her remedy in the manner known to law. However it is
the claim of the learned Government Advocate that if there is any grievance
with regard to the fixation of compensation, the petitioner has to invoke the
appropriate remedy available under Section 64 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Fair Compensation Act') before the
competent authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
10. In such a backdrop, this Court is inclined to issue direction to the
respondents to furnish the award copy to the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the
petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application under Section 64 of the
Fair Compensation Act, for redetermination of fair compensation, within a
further period of four weeks and on receipt of the said application, the
appropriate authority shall refer the matter for fixation of fair compensation
within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
11. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.04.2022
sk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7
W.P.No.12555 of 2004
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
sk To
1.Secretary to the Government , Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) SIPCOT Units, Sriperumbudur.
4.The Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
W.P.No.12555 of 200412.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7