Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Apart from the above contentions advanced by the said six companies, the petitioners have also advanced other contentions such as violation or non compliance of Section 4 or Section 5-A or Section 6 or The Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules, etc. The main contentions advanced by the six companies will be taken up for consideration, while the other contentions advanced will be taken up at the first instance.

17. According to the petitioners, the lands are not at all required for TANCEM as vast extent of lands with substantial deposit of limestone are available with TANCEM and recently the State Government released lands in favour of two other companies, namely, M/s. Alagappa Cements Ltd. and M/s. Venkateswara Cements Ltd. from and out of the lands reserved for TANCEM by separate G.O.s from the lands already held by TANCEM, there is substantial reserve over 77 Million Metric Tons of limestone, which will be sufficient for several decades on a moderate estimate. Further, TANCEM has not been able to achieve even 100% productivity and, therefore, the acquisition will seriously destroy the public interest as the petitioner-companies could always maintain maximum production capacity and they will be throttled or disabled with total stoppage in production by the acquisition of their land and as a consequence public interest will suffer in several ways, besides the State will also sustain loss in revenue such as Sales Tax, Excise Duty and Direct Taxes and the workers have to be retrenched once the limestone deposits owned as of today by the petitioner-companies get exhausted.

64. While deciding Points A to F together, this Court has to examine and focus its attention to the following incidental issues as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners :-

"i) Whether the acquisition for TANCEM is a bona fide exercise of power of colourable exercise of power ? Whether the requirement of TANCEM is bona fide ?
ii) Whether deposit of limestone, a major mineral could be the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings under the Act ?"

65. One of the substantial contentions advanced being that M/s. Dalmia Cements, M/s. Madras Cements, M/s. Nilgiris Cements, M/s. Grasim Industries, M/s. Alagappa Cements and M/s. KGM Minerals have acquired the lands for the purpose of exploiting the limestone deposits available. M/s. Dalmia Cements contended that they have secured prior permission for the acquisition of the land under Section 37 B of The Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. On that basis it is contended that the respective petitioner also do hold the lands for public purpose and using the limestone for the manufacture of the same product, viz., cement. The acquisition of the lands for the purpose of TANCEM for the purpose of its factory cannot be a public purpose at all. In this respect, the petitioners' relied upon the decision of Mishra, J., (as he then was) in SAROJA SETHU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS reported in 1993 WLR 240 and vehemently contended that there is no justification at all to acquire the lands for the purpose of TANCEM when the petitioners' also propose to use the lands for the same purpose of manufacture of cement in their factory. Much reliance was placed on the permission granted under Section 37 B of The Land Reforms Act.

67. The six companies are either public limited companies or private limited companies registered under The Indian Companies Act. As against these companies, TANCEM is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. TANCEM has already established a cement factory and it is on full stream. The manufacturing process is going on for more than three decades. TANCEM requires substantial quantity of limestone deposits. As set out in the counter affidavit, TANCEM has acquired lands earlier, but limestone deposits available in those lands are either insufficient or the quality is very poor or inferior grade and, therefore, they are not suitable for the manufacture of cement. That is the reason TANCEM has submitted fresh proposal for acquisition for further extent of land to meet its requirement. It cannot be stated that the requirement of TANCEM is not a bona fide one nor it could be held that it is not a public purpose. In terms of Section 3 (f), the expression "public purpose" includes provision of land for a Corporation owned or controlled by the State. TANCEM is a Corporation wholly owned and controlled by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the requirement of TANCEM falls definitely within the expression public purpose as defined in the Act.

72.This contention overlooks the statutory provisions. Further, it has to be pointed out that as of today in the lands notified and declared lime stone deposits are available. The purpose of acquisition by the petitioners is for their cement factory or their expansion, namely, to quarry limestone and use it in their respective cement factories. The impugned acquisition has been undertaken for the State undertaking namely TANCEM. The requirement of TANCEM for its cement factories cannot but be held is a public purpose. It is a public undertaking by the State and the requirement of TANCEM in this respect cannot be doubted at all, though it is contended that the lands already owned by TANCEM is substantial and sufficient to meet its requirement for further few decades. It is fairly admitted by the petitioners that they have purchased the lands in question, but the lands have been purchased by them as they have deposit of lime stone and it is only a potential user and definitely it is not being used as a mine, no quarrying operation is being undertaken as of today, nor any licence has been secured as of today. The contention is that when the petitioners propose to use the lands for quarrying lime stone on a future date for the same purpose, the lands cannot be acquired with the same object of quarrying lime stone to benefit the State Undertaking and such an acquisition is not the public purpose at all. According to the petitioners the petitioners will also quarry the lime stone and use it in the manufacture of cement like TANCEM and the cement is being marketed which has been used as a building material by all. Therefore, it is contended that the object of acquisition of lands being identical user, there is no reason or justification to notify the petitioners' lands and confer a monopoly on the State Undertaking. This contention is devoid of merits as the acquisition is not a mine, but the acquisition is in respect of agricultural lands simpliciter. It may be a potential mine, but it is not being used as a quarry nor it could be contended that the lands ceased to be agricultural lands.