Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 The third respondent accelerated his recommendation to 2nd respondent in July 1999. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 18.11.2002 directed the petitioner to obtain an evaluation (Appraisal) report from Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation of Tamil Nadu Limited (ITCOT). As the officials of the ITCOT informed that they are not competent to give a report, the petitioner on the advice of TIDCO obtained appraisal report from Special Agriculture Cell of State Bank of India. The petitioner informed the second respondent about the inability of ITCOT to prepare appraisal report and at the same time submitted the appraisal report from Special Agriculture Cell of State Bank of India. The above application for exemption was rejected by the Government of Tamil Nadu on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ground of non submission of report from ITCOT. While so the first respondent proceeded to acquire the lands on wrong assumption that they are excess land under Act. The petitioner herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.11306 of 2006 before this Court challenging the Government Order rejecting the application for exemption on account of non submission of appraisal report from ITCOT. This Court, by order dated 02.11.2006 directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application under Section 37(A) of Act on receiving the ITCOT Report within 6 weeks thereafter. Since the respondent had not initiated any action on the application for exemption even after several letters and representations, the petitioner issued notice dated 14.02.2014 calling upon the first respondent to pass appropriate orders. By letter dated 26.02.2014 the first respondent informed the counsel for the petitioner that the matter is under active examination with the government in consultation with 1st and 2nd respondent and the final action taken in this regard.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 As per the Adangal and the site inspection on 21.07.1999, it came to know that the petitioner has cultivated plantation only in 7.50 acres alone and all the remaining lands were uncultivated. Even after letter dated 18.11.2002 by the second respondent directing the petitioner company to obtain evaluation report from ITCOT, no report was submitted by the petitioner from ITCOT or any other special agricultural cell of the State Bank of India and hence the application for exemption was rejected by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.147, Revenue [LR-II (1)] Department dated 17.03.2004. Earlier the petitioner company filed writ petition in W.P.No.11306 of 2006 challenging the above G.O.(Ms.)No.147 dated 17.03.2004 and this Court ordred to reconsider the petitioner's application under Section 37A of the Act with the appraisal report of ITCOT. In the mean time in view of the proposed amendment to Section 37A and 37B of the Act was under the consideration of the Government, further action in implementing the order of this Court could not be taken up by the first respondent.

12 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner company is a public limited company originally under the name of M/s.Stride Acquatics Limited and purchased an extent of 170.94 Acres of existing plantation land comprised in Old paimash No 389, Survey No 426, 444/1 to 444/7, 455/1A, 455/1B and 455/2 in Sirumalai village, Dindigul Taluk, bearing Patta No 755 (Old No 513) and ever since was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner company. The petitioner proposed to utilize the land for the purpose of planting, nurturing and growing various species of plants for promoting herbiculture and floriculture. The petitioner discussed with TIDCO for the above project and entered into an Associate Sector Agreement with TIDCO with equity participation from the state. Based on the agreement, the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submitted an application under Section 37(A) of the Act on 15.10.1998 to the third respondent for exemption and the third respondent recommended to 2nd respondent in July 1999 and the second respondent by letter dated 18.11.2002 directed the petitioner to obtain an evaluation (Appraisal) report from ITCOT. As the officials of the ITCOT informed that they are not competent to give a report, the petitioner on the advice of TIDCO obtained appraisal report from Special Agriculture Cell of State Bank of India and the petitioner informed the same to the second respondent and submitted the appraisal report from Special Agriculture Cell of State Bank of India. The said application for exemption was rejected by the Government of Tamil Nadu on the ground of non submission of report from ITCOT.

17 A careful reading of entire materials, shows that the petitioner has not established the vital fact that either on the date of purchase of lands or on the date of filing of application under Section 37A of the Act, in the entire lands, they have made plantation under the definition of Section 3(35) of the Act and the same were in existence. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that they applied for exemption under Section 37A of the Act and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis after getting the same only they can made plantation or they can set up industrial unit, which clearly shows that on the date of filing of application, neither plantation nor the industry were in existence. Admittedly the land was purchased in the year 1996 and they made application in the year 1998 and neither in the interregnum period nor after the application, the petitioner taken effective steps to establish the plantation or industrial unit. Earlier the petitioner did not obtain appraisal report from ITCOT and pursuant to the directions of this Court only they obtained appraisal report from ITCOT and submitted the same before the respondents. But, since the respondents finds that the petitioner is not eligible for exemption as the land was already declared as surplus lands under the Act, and eligible beneficiaries were identified and steps were taken to assign the land.