Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.No.1063 of 2012 etc., batch 27.1. The writ petitioner questioned the Section 3(1) notification mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner is running an industry in the lands sought to be acquired. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that at the time of issuance of Section 3(2) notice there was no industry but however the petitioner had put up an industry subsequently taking advantage of interim stay granted by this Court on 30.05.2012. However, a perusal of various documents filed by petitioner in his typed set of papers would suggest that the industrial activity were found in his lands even prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, namely in the year 2009 itself, whereas Section 3(2) notice was published only on 15.02.2010, even according to the averment found in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. Further in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in paragraph 9(e) it was admitted that there is an industry running in the land in question and the petitioners objection has been rejected by the Requisition Body. However, when objection was made by the petitioner in response to the Section 3(2) notice, the same shall be considered only by the District Collector by virtue of his delegated power. But we are unable to see whether the Deputy Collector has considered the objections. In the absence of any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.No.1063 of 2012 etc., batch material to show that the objection made by the petitioner that he was running an industry in the land in question was considered, the order of rejection passed by the SIPCOT renders the acquisition notification initiated under Section 3(1) as invalid. Further, when the purpose of land acquisition is for the expansion of industrial complex, as the petitioner has already been running an industry, which is in tune with the object of purpose of land acquisition proceedings. The State Government established the industrial complex with an object to increase the employment opportunities among the educated and uneducated youths, therefore, in our considered view, the existing industry shall not be closed. If this Court accepts the stand of the respondent to close down the existing industry, then that would do away the very purpose of initiating acquisition proceedings for establishment of industrial complex. Hence, impugned notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Act closing down an existing industry shall be liable to be set aside. Thus, for these reasons, the writ petition stands allowed.

5.Special District Revenue Officer, SIPCOT (Land Acquisition), Kasikara Street, Cheyyar-604 407.

6.Special Tahsildar (SIPCOT-LA) At No.9, Pathala Vinayagar Koil Street, Cheyyar-604 407.

7.The District Collector, Kancheepuram.

8.The Special Tahsildar (LA), Sriperumbudur Extension, Scehem 2, Alagu-4, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

11.The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Unit-3, SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme -II, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

12.The Managing Director, SIPCOT Unit-III, Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

13.The Special Thasildar (land Acquisition) Unit-II, SIPCOT, Oragadam Expansion Scheme-2, Sriperambadur-602 105.

14.The Managing Director, Land Acquisition Unit-2, SIPCOT, Oragadam Expansion Scheme-II, Sriperambudur-602 105.

15.Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sriperambudur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.No.1063 of 2012 etc., batch THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and S.SOUNTHAR, J.