Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) that the State Government, after having granted permission to acquire land to the appellant under Section 37A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, is barred by the principles of "Promissory estoppel" from initiating acquisition proceedings;

(e) that the acquisition proceedings are not for a public purpose, inasmuch as TANCEM has been declared as a sick company by the proceedings of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, in its proceedings dated 18.6.2003 after recording a statement from the Government that it had decided to disinvest its stake in TANCEM, which would go to show that the actual purpose of continuing the land acquisition proceedings, is to pass on the land to third parties that would acquire TANCEM and the acquisition proceeding are motivated.

(f) that since the acquisition proceedings are not complete in view of the interim orders of stay of dispossession, and also since the Government had decided to disinvest its holding in TANCEM, some private company may acquire TANCEM and become a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, in violation of the special procedure prescribed under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for private companies.

4. Mr. V.Suthakar, Mr. C.Prakasam, Mr. K.R.Krishnan and Mr. M.Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in other writ appeals adopted the arguments of Mr. Shanthi Bushan, learned senior counsel. However, Mr. Satish Parasaran, apart from adopting the arguments of the learned senior counsel, also raised two additional contentions namely, that in most of the cases, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published beyond the time limit stipulated under the Act and that the mandatory requirement of publication of the notifications in the Newspapers having circulation in the locality was violated, by making publications in Newspapers having no circulation in the area.

(e) that TANCEM has started making profits from the financial year 2002-2003 and had already shown positive signs of recovery and hence there is no proposal for the Government to disinvest its stake in TANCEM;

(f) that while the cement manufactured by private companies such as the appellants are sold in the market at the rate of Rs. 200/- per bag, the cement manufactured by TANCEM is sold at the rate of Rs. 145/- per bag and the entire production of TANCEM is used for consumption by the Government of Tamil Nadu for its public welfare projects, making it clear that the acquisition of land for the benefit of TANCEM is actually for a public purpose; and

42. TANCEM HAD BEEN DECLARED AS A SICK COMPANY:

It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that TANCEM had been declared as a sick company by the proceedings of BIFR dated 18.6.2003, after recording a statement from the State Government that they had decided to disinvest its stake in TANCEM. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellants that the lands once acquired, would actually pass on to private parties after disinvestment. In this context, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 151.