Madras High Court
Smt. Subbayammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its ... on 30 July, 2002
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents to establish growth centre by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development at Perundurai, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash those proceedings on various grounds.
2. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of an extent of 3.12.5 hectares in S.F.No.376/1, Perundurai village and Taluk. After purchase in 1979, she planted 300 coconut trees, 50 mango trees and 50 lemon trees in the land and also cultivating the other crops in the rest of the area. It is also stated that she is a small farmer and depending on the land under acquisition for her livelihood. While so, the respondents with a view to establish "growth centre" by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development at Perundurai sought to acquire her land and the neighbouring lands and issued necessary notification.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the land acquisition proceedings upto the stage of passing award on 8.12.1995, has raised the following contentions:
1. The declaration published in the Gazette dated 7.12.1993 is beyond the prescribed period of one year. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.
2. The petitioner is a small farmer. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to acquire her land.
3. The public purpose mentioned in the notification is vague.
4. The publication of 4(1) notification in Tamil dailies viz., Dhina Thodu and Namadu M.G.R. had no circulation in the locality at the relevant time.
5. Having excluded the land of the neighbours of the petitioner, the respondents are not permitted to acquire the land of the petitioner.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents after taking me through various averments in the counter affidavit met all the points and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. First of all, it is to be noted that for setting up an Industrial Growth Centre at Perundurai, an extent of 2,500 acres of land in Perundurai and Ingur villages, Periyar District were sought to be acquired, which includes the land of the petitioner in S.F.No.376/1 of Perundurai village. Accordingly, it cannot be contended that the land of the petitioner alone was sought to be acquired.
6. Regarding the first contention that there was a delay in publishing declaration under Section 6, it is seen from the counter affidavit that the gist of 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 9.12.1992 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 7.12.1993 i.e., well within one year period. Accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
7. Coming to the second contention that the petitioner is a small farmer, admittedly, there is no prohibition either in the Act or in the rules excluding the small farmer from the purview of the acquisition. No doubt, Government have issued executive instructions not to acquire land of a small farmer. The Courts taken a view that in the absence of statutory provision, the executive instruction cannot prevail over the same. Accordingly, the said contention is also liable to be rejected.
8. Regarding the claim that the public purpose referred to in the notification is vague, first of all, I am of the view that the public purpose viz., the land is needed for setting up an "Industrial Growth Centre" at Perundurai. Accordingly, the said purpose cannot be termed as vague as claimed. Even otherwise, after the decision of the Supreme Court in L. KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU , the said contention is also liable to be rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the publication of 4(1) notification was made in news dailies, which are not having circulation in the locality in which the land situated. It is seen from the counter affidavit that apart from the Gazette notification, the 4(1) notification was published in dailies viz., Dhina Thodu and Namadu M.G.R. on 22.10.1992. There is no serious dispute regarding availability of one Tamil daily viz., Namadu M.G.R in the area in question. Accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
10. Regarding the last contention that the Government have excluded the neighbouring lands from the purview of acquisition proceedings, in the counter filed by the Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), TACID, Unit IV, Perundurai, it has been specifically stated that the land owners in survey No.377 have applied for exclusion of their land from acquisition. The Government in their letter No.32511/MIH2/94-1 Industries (MIH2) Department dated 14.11.1994 have excluded the said land. It is also stated that the petitioner did not apply for exclusion of the land from acquisition. In such circumstances, the complaint of the petitioner with reference to the exclusion of neighbouring land owners cannot be accepted.
11. In the light of what is stated above, I don't find any error or infirmity in the impugned acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that considering the fact that the Government itself has excluded certain lands from the acquisition proceedings and also the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vast extent of lands are available for setting up the public purpose viz., industrial growth centre, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the Government for exclusion of her land. If any such representation is made, it is for the Government to consider and pass orders in consultation with the requisitioning body TACID expeditiously. Consequently, the connected W.M.P is closed.