Madras High Court
A.N.Subramanyan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 August, 2021
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.Nos.1878 & 1879 of 2014 and
MP.Nos.2 & 2 of 2014 and WP.No.2525 of 2014 & MP.No.2 of 2014
and WP.Nos.2014 to 2017 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2 of 2014
and WP.Nos.7739 to 7753 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of
2014 & MP.Nos.3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 of 2014 and
WP.Nos.35589 to 35591 of 2015 and 36389 & 36390 of 2015 and
MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2 of 2015 and WP.No.7998 of 2015 and WP.Nos.13577 to
13587 of 2014 & MP.Nos.3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 of 2011 &
MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.26981 to 26983 of 2014,
21185 to 21191 of 2014, 9933 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2 of 2014 and
WP.Nos.22944 to 22951 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 and
WP.Nos.24262 to 24267 of 2015 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2015 &
WMP.Nos.6761 to 6765 of 2016 & 8086 of 2016 and
WP.Nos.5198 to 5206 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014
WP.No.1878 of 2014
A.N.Subramanyan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Industries,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit-3, SIPCOT,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II,
Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District
4.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT Unit-III,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008 ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the acquisition notification in GO.Ms.No.114 Industries
(SIPCOT-LA), on the file of the first respondent issued under sub-section (1)
of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes
Act, 1997, published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazatte Extraordinary
No.149-Part-II-Section2 dated 04.06.2012 relating to the property schedule
therein and insofar the petitioners property is concerned, being the housing
site in Plot No.78, comprised in survey No.320/2A1 measuring to an extent of
2400 sq.ft. in 180, Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram
District and the consequential notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act 10 of 1999) issued
by the 2nd and 3rd respondent in their proceeding in Rc.No.7/2009 Unit II
dated 02.01.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent to conduct personal hearing as per the representation of the
petitioner dated 12.02.2010 by furnishing the report of the respondents 3 and
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
4 to him.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja Sekhar
For Respondents
For R1 to 3: Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
For R4 : M/s.Sudarshana Sunder
COMMON ORDER
All the Writ Petitions are filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the acquisition notification in GO.Ms.No.114 Industries (SIPCOT-LA), on the file of the first respondent issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazatte Extraordinary No.149-Part-II-Section 2 dated 04.06.2012 relating to the property schedule therein and insofar the petitioners' properties are concerned and the consequential notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act 10 of 1999) issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in their proceedings in Rc.No.7/2009 Unit II dated 02.01.2014 and quash the same 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct personal hearing as per the representation of the petitioners by furnishing the report of the respondents 3 and 4 to them.
2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have purchased their respective house plots by the registered sale deed (hereinafter called as 'subject property'). The first respondent intended to acquire the subject property for industrial purpose, to wit, for expansion of SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II under the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamilnadu Act 10 of 1999) (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The first respondent by the GO.Ms.No.2 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 06.01.2009 have accorded administrative sanction for the acquisition of 173.25.5 hectares of patta dry lands and alienation of 76.26.0 hectares of poramboke lands in Vaipur, Perinjambakkam and Mathur villages of Sriperumbudur Taluk for the Expansion of SIPCOT, Oragadam Industrial Growth Centre Expansion-II.
According to the petitioners, they were not issued notice as contemplated under Section 14 ( c) of the Act. In pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch the second respondent issued show cause notice through paper publication as contemplated under Section 3 (2) of the Act. On receipt of the same, the petitioners raised their objections stating that the respective properties needed for constructing residential houses. Without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, and without conducting any enquiry, the first respondent issued notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act by respective Government orders and published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette. The respondents also did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 3 (2) and (3) of the Act. They did not conduct any enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioners as contemplated under Rule 6 (b) and (c ) of the Act. Therefore, challenging the notification issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act and also consequential notice issued under Section 4 (2) of the Act and consequentially for direction directing the first respondent to conduct personal hearing as per the representation submitted by the petitioners, the writ petitions have been filed.
3. The second respondent filed counter and stated that the Government in their GO.Ms.No.2 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch 06.01.2009 have accorded the administrative sanction for the acquisition of 173.25.5 hectares of patta dry lands and alienation of 76.26.0 hectares of poramboke lands in Vaipur, Perinjambakkam and Mathur Villages of Sriperumbudur Taluk, for the expansion of SIPCOT, Oragadam Industrial Growth Centre Expansion-II. Accordingly to an extent of 14.70.5 hectares of dry lands in Unit-II, Block-III, comprising survey Nos.59, 60, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,71,72,73 and 74 of Mathur Village were notified for the acquisition under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (The Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) by the second respondent in his reference Na.Ka.No.5/2009, dated 10.12.2009. As contemplated under Section 3 (2) of the Act, Form A were sent to all the petitioners through registered post with acknowledgement due. The notification in Form B published in two dailies, thereby called upon the objections from the persons aggrieved of the acquisition. All the objections raised by the respective petitioners referred to fourth respondent who is the requisitioning body and obtained their remarks. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted enquiry and heard all the objections. In fact, on receipt of the notice under Form A, some of the petitioners failed to raise any 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch objections and also failed to appear for the enquiry conducted by the second respondent. Only thereafter, the notification was issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act by the impugned GO's.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following grounds:
(a) The impugned notification issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act is contrary to the provisions as contemplated under Sections 3 (2) and (3) of the Act read with Rule 6 (b) & (c ) of the Act.
(b) The second respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to hear the objections.
(c ) The first respondent cannot delegate the power to the second respondent and it clearly mandates that the first respondent before passing the order under Section 3 (1) of the Act, it should hear and consider the cause if any shown by the owner or the person interested.
(d) Section 3 (2) and (3) of the Act read with Rule 6 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
(b) and ( c) of the Act confer valuable right in favour of the respective petitioners whose land is sought to be acquired and having regard to the provisions contained under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India in exercise of their power of eminent domain may interfere with the right to the property of a person strictly in conformity with the procedure established by law.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate Mr.Richardson Wilson submitted that the Government have delegated the power to the second respondent and the same is proper and valid as per section 23 A of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents are proper and valid. There are provisions to authorise the second respondent to hear objections by the first respondent under the Act. The first respondent passed orders based on the records placed and the enquiry conducted by the second 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch respondent and after applying their mind, the orders were passed as per the provisions contemplated under the Act. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to Government Vs. M/s.V.G.P. Housing Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Chennai in WA.No.1710 of 2017 dated 01.02.2018 and also the judgment in the case of N.Murugan Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in (2014) 5 LW 385.
6. Heard, Mr.M.Raja Sekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Richardson Wilson, Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, and M/s.Sudarshana Sunder, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
7. The Government in their GO.Ms.No.2 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 06.01.2009 have accorded the administrative sanction for the acquisition of 173.25.5 hectares of patta dry lands and alienation of 76.26.0 hectares of poramboke lands in Vaipur, Perinjambakkam and Mathur 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch Villages of Sriperumbudur Taluk, for the expansion of SIPCOT, Oragadam Industrial Growth Centre Expansion-II. Accordingly, to an extent of 14.70.5 hectares of dry lands in Unit-II, Block-III, comprising in survey Nos.59, 60, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,71,72,73 and 74 of Mathur Village were notified for the acquisition under section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (The Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) by the second respondent in his reference Na.Ka.No.5/2009, dated 10.12.2009. In pursuant to the Government order, the petitioners were issued notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act. All the petitioners were duly served notice and some of the petitioners filed their objections and some of the petitioners failed to raise any objection. All the objections raised by the petitioners were referred to the fourth respondent who is being requisitioning body. After obtaining opinion from the requisitioning body, the second respondent conducted enquiry on 12.02.2010. In the enquiry, some of the petitioners appeared and some of the petitioners did not appear before the enquiry conducted by the second respondent. Thereafter, the impugned notification was issued by the first respondent as contemplated under Section (3) (1) of the Act.
10/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
8. In all these writ petitions, the points for consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether the District Collector has power to conduct enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioners as contemplated under Section 3 (2) and (3) of the Act read with Rule 6 (b) and (c ) of the Act.
(ii) If the second respondent is empowered to conduct enquiry, whether the second respondent followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 3 (2) read with Rule 6 (b) and (c ) of the Act.
9. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have already been settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to Government Vs. M/s.V.G.P. Housing Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Chennai in WA.No.1710 of 2017 dated 01.02.2018, wherein this Court held as follows:
8. The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 is a self contained code providing for acquisition of land for industrial purposes in the State. The State legislature enacted Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 for speedy acquisition of land for industrial purposes.11/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch The Act contained a summary procedure for conducting enquiry and to take a decision as to whether the particular land is required for the industrial purpose.
9. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act provides that the Government shall issue notice calling upon the land owners to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. The objection received from the land owners must be considered before issuing the notification for acquisition under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act. Section 4 provides that when a notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. There are other provisions relating to determination of land value, apportionment and reference to the Court either for apportionment, in case, there is a dispute with regard to entitlement or a claim for enhancement.
10. Section 23-A of the Industrial Purposes Act deals with delegation of powers. The said provision reads thus:-
23-A Delegation of Powers:
The Government may, by notification, direct that all the powers under this Act except the powers,-12/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch (1) to issue notice under sub-section (1) of section 3; (2) to withdraw the land from acquisition under the first proviso to sub-section (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. It would not be possible for the Government to conduct enquiry in each and every case relating to the acquisition for industrial purposes. The Government therefore delegated all the essential functions under the Industrial Purposes Act to the District Collector concerned except the power to issue Notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 or withdrawal of the land from acquisition under sub-section (1) of section 4 or to make rules under Section 25.
12. The Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 23-A of the Industrial Purposes Act, issued a notification dated 2 September 2005 authorising the District Collector of the districts concerned to exercise all the functions under the Act. The notification dated 2 September 2005 was not challenged at any point of time. The learned single Judge considered the question as to whether it was proper on the part of the Government to conduct enquiry through the Collector and thereafter to issue notification 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act. According to the learned single Judge, since the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 has to be issued by the Government, enquiry should also be conducted only by the Government. The learned single Judge while quashing the acquisition though placed reliance on the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.513 dated 2 September 2005, made no attempt to interpret the said notification in the light of Section 23-A of the Industrial Purposes Act.
13. The learned single Judge proceeded as if the enquiry has to be conducted only by the Government. The very purpose of enacting Section 23-A of the Industrial Purposes Act and issuing the notification in G.O.Ms.No.513, dated 2 September 2005 was only for the purpose of giving power to the District Collector to conduct enquiry. In case, the enquiry has to be conducted by the Government in all such cases, the acquisition would be delayed and the very purpose of enacting the special statute would be defeated.
14. The District Collector after conducting enquiry under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act must place all the materials before the Government. The Government would consider the objection given by the land owners, comments made by the District Collector and ultimately would take a decision as to whether notification 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act should be issued for acquiring the land. Similar provisions are contained in other enactments, and more particularly in certain special statutes enacted by the State. This is not a case of delegation by way of executive order. The statute itself contained a provision for delegation. The Government has exercised the power of delegation conferred by the special statute and issued the order in G.O.Ms.No.513, dated 2 September 2005.
15. Before the learned single Judge neither the legality of Section 23-A nor the consequential order in G.O.Ms.No.513 dated 2 September 2005 were challenged. The learned single Judge was therefore not correct in interpreting the provision and the related Government Order without a specific challenge.
16. The learned counsel for the first respondent has taken up a contention by placing reliance on Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2001, which provides for hearing objections by the Government.
17. Section 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act permits delegation of powers by the Government. The Collector, as a delegatee is empowered to conduct hearing of objections in the place of 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch the Government. The fact that Rule 6 contains a provision for hearing of objections by the Government would not nullify Section 23-A of the Act giving the Government the power of delegation. Rule 6 is subject to Section 23-A of the Act. Wherever the name Government is shown in Rule 6, it has to be read as District Collector, in view of Section 23-A of the Act and the notification in G.O.Ms.No.513 Revenue dated 2 September 2005. We therefore reject the contention taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent on the strength of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules.
18. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court is not to legislate. The Court can only interpret the law and cannot enter the field of legislation. The Court must interpret the provision enacted by the legislature in a particular manner, taking into account the intention of the legislature. It is not for the Court to say that the Government was not correct in delegating certain power to the executive without there being any challenge to the provision permitting such delegation.
19. We make the position clear that the District Collectors are empowered to conduct enquiry after issuing Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act and to forward the same with 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch recommendation to the Government for issuance of notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Industrial Purposes Act. We hold that there is no legal requirement mandating that the enquiry should be conducted only by the Government.
20. In view of the reasons above, the order dated 10 July 2012 in W.P.No.2056 of 2010 is set aside. The writ petition in W.P.No.2056 of 2010 is dismissed.
21. In the upshot, we allow the intra court appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Section 23 A of the Act provides delegation of powers by the first respondent.
All the powers under the Act except the powers to issue notice under sub-
section (1) of Section 3, to withdraw the land from acquisition under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4, and to make rules under section 25, shall be exercised by the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to conduct enquiry after issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the Act and to forward the same with the recommendations to the first respondent for issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the first point is answered against the petitioners.
17/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
10. All the petitioners were duly served notice under sub clause (2) of Section 3 of the Act. After receipt of notice, some of the petitioners submitted their objections and those objections were duly placed before the fourth respondent who is the requisitioning body as contemplated under Rule 6 (b) of the Act. After obtaining remarks from the fourth respondent, the second respondent conducted enquiry and forwarded the recommendations to the first respondent for issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Some of the petitioners appeared and the remaining did not appear for enquiry. Therefore, the petitioners were sufficiently given opportunity of hearing on receipt of their objections and the second respondent conducted enquiry and forwarded the recommendations for issuance of notification as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.
11. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel who assisted this Court and submitted that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch and Section 3 sub-clause (2) of the Act are one and the same. Therefore, after receipt of the remarks on the objections raised by the petitioners, the petitioners may be given opportunity to see the remarks submitted by the requisitioning body and may be given opportunity to reply. Thereafter, the enquiry should be conducted by the second respondent after giving opportunity of hearing. In the case on hand, the second respondent did not place remarks received from the requisitioning body to the petitioners and as such it vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings.
12. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment in the case of N.Murugan Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in (2014) 5 LW 385, wherein it is held as follows:
13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. Ramakrishnan v. The Government of Tamilnadu in W.P. Nos. 40850 of 2006 Batch, decided on 02.03.2007, has refused to quash the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, by holding as under:
19/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch “26. In pith and substance, the State Government for speedy industrial growth in the State felt the lands for industrial purpose have to be acquired speedily and enacted the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act with a conceptualized vision that more industries would be started in Tamil Nadu and the acquisition of lands for setting up such industries would be expedited to achieve the laudable object of big industrialization in the State of Tamil Nadu. Such power of the State to enact T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act or such powers conferred under the authorities under the Act for speedy acquisition of lands for industrial purpose cannot be strangled on the ground of legislative competency, as such power of acquisition and requisitioning of property conferred under Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List) is independent by itself, but not ancillary or incidental to the power to regulate mines and minerals under Entry 54 of List I (Union List). It is thus clear that neither the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act suffers from any legislative competency nor the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated under the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act suffer for want of jurisdiction. 27.1. Next, we proceed to examine 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch the attack on the impugned acquisition proceedings made by the land owners/interested persons, for non compliance of Rule 6 of the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules due to the failure to furnish the remarks of the requisitioning body/NLC. 27.2. Of course, our attention was invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramanujam N.D. v. Collector of Madras, 1994 WLR 326. The said case arose under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the lands were acquired by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board/requisitioning body to provide water supply to the residents of a locality. During the acquisition proceedings even though objections were filed by land owners/interested persons, there was no record to show that the reply of the requisitioning body was communicated to the petitioner therein to make the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effective and purposeful. Therefore, it was held that the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules that are applicable for 5A enquiry in the matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed in the matter of 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch hearing the objections of the land owners/interested persons to the acquisition and holding an enquiry in that regard. Rule 4 of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules reads as follows:
“Rule (4)(a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form ‘B’ to the objector as well as to the department or company acquiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company.
The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry, (c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector, or a person authorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land.” 27.3. No doubt, the said Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed under Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is akin to Rule 6 of T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules made under Section 25 of T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act. But, in view of Section 21 of the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are excluded save as otherwise provided in the Act, and therefore, neither the provision relating to the 5A enquiry nor the rules related to enquiry under Section 5A, nor the ratio laid with respect to the enquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall have any relevancy to the acquisition proceedings of the present Act. That apart, such a situation is not contemplated expressly either in Section 3 of the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act or under Rule 6 of T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules. What all Section 3 contemplates is only to publish notice under Section 3(2) by the Government calling upon the land owners/interested persons to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired and also cause a public notice in that regard, and thereafter to receive objection, 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch forward the copy to requisitioning body and after getting statement by way of answer from the requisitioning body, to hold an enquiry and take a decision and thereafter pass an order under Section 3(1) as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act that the land is required for industrial purpose and in furtherance of the object of the Act. 27.4. In our considered opinion, in view of Section 21 of the Act, the provisions of the Act and Rules should be interpreted strictly applying the golden rule of interpretation that the literal interpretation should be adhered to in the absence of any anomaly or absurdity in reading the words of the statute as it stands, and a statute cannot be looked at with a coloured glass.
28. Lastly, we are unable to comprehend such grievance of the land owners/interested persons that the Government failed to provide sufficient rehabilitation measures/safeguards to the land owners/interested persons, as contemplated under the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families-2003, in view of the undertaking given by the respondents in the counter affidavit that rehabilitation package has been provided in order to give relief and rehabilitation measure to genuinely displaced land oustees, which, we record, would take care of the interest 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch of the petitioners seeking sufficient rehabilitation measures/safeguards under the National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families-2003.
29. In fine, all the attempts to strangulate the impugned acquisition proceedings under the provisions of T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act fail as devoid of merits and for want of legal contentions.
30. Resultantly,
(i) the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act and the Rules framed thereunder does not suffer from lack of legislative competency of the State Government and therefore, the same are held constitutionally valid;
(ii) the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated under the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act does not suffer any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety; and
(iii) the writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.” The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that neither the provision relating to the 5A enquiry nor the rules related to enquiry under Section 5A, 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch the ratio laid with respect to the enquiry under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall have any relevancy to the acquisition proceedings of the present Act. That apart, such a situation is not contemplated expressly either in Section 3 of the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act or under Rule 6 of the Act. That apart, Section 21 of The Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 reads as follows:
21. Land Acquisition Act not to apply: Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purpose specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 and any such land shall be acquired by the Government only in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
13. Accordingly, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purpose specified under The Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
Therefore, Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 3 sub-clause (2) of the Act are not connected each other.
26/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch
14. That apart, as stated supra, all the petitioners were duly served notice under Section 3 (2) of the Act and some of the petitioners submitted their objections and also attended enquiry. Therefore, there is no violation of the procedures as contemplated under Sections 3 (2) and (3) of the Act read with Rule 6 (b) & (c ) of the Act, and there is no violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.
15. In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions do not have merits and are liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that The Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 itself is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the proceedings subject to the result of the special leave petitions.
16. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
27/30https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch 13.08.2021 lok Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
3.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Unit-3, SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District
4.The Managing Director, SIPCOT Unit-III, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok 29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP.No.1878 of 2014, etc. batch WP.Nos.1878 & 1879 of 2014 and MP.Nos.2 & 2 of 2014 and WP.No.2525 of 2014 & MP.No.2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.2014 to 2017 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.7739 to 7753 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 & MP.Nos.3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 of 2014 and WP.Nos.35589 to 35591 of 2015 and 36389 & 36390 of 2015 and MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2 of 2015 and WP.No.7998 of 2015 and WP.Nos.13577 to 13587 of 2014 & MP.Nos.3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 of 2011 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.26981 to 26983 of 2014, 21185 to 21191 of 2014, 9933 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.22944 to 22951 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 and WP.Nos.24262 to 24267 of 2015 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2015 & WMP.Nos.6761 to 6765 of 2016 & 8086 of 2016 and WP.Nos.5198 to 5206 of 2014 & MP.Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 of 2014 13.08.2021 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/