Madras High Court
M/S.Lakshmi Sastry Construction ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 August, 2021
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 17.02.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF
JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
M/s.Lakshmi Sastry Construction Co.,
Rep. by V.K.Subbramanian .. Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Industries Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.M/s.SIPCOT,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Street,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4.The Special Tahsildhar (LA),
SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/20
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16843 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.V.K.Subramanian
Party-in-person
For R1, R3 and R4 : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Spl. Government Pleader (L.A)
For R2 : Mr.Sudharshana Sundar
JUDGMENT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
This Writ Appeal No.2660 of 2021 is filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, dated 26.08.2021,
thereby dismissing his Writ Petition No.16843 of 2017. By the said Writ
Petition, the appellant had prayed to quash the order of the fourth
respondent, namely the Special Tahsildhar (LA), SIPCOT Oragadam
Expansion Scheme, dated 09.08.2016, whereby, the request of the appellant
to enhance the compensation in respect of the acquired property comprised
in old Survey Nos.49/1A4 and 49/1B and new Survey Nos.190/5, 190/6
bearing D.T.C.P plot Nos.32 to 36 in Navin Nagar layout of Oragadam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
village measuring an extent of 10,800 Sq.ft, or to exclude the property from
acquisition, was rejected.
2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the present Writ
Appeal are as follows. By a registered sale deed, dated 29.02.1988, the
appellant had purchased the above property. While so, for the industrial
purpose of expansion of SIPCOT-Oragadam industrial complex, the said
lands were sought to be acquired under the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act, 10
of 1999) (herein after refer to as 'the Act 10 of 1999'). Along with the lands
of 29 others, by G.O.Ms.No.191, Industries, (SIPCOT-LA) Department,
dated 04.07.2007 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.187,
Page No.49, dated 04.07.2007, a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act,
10 of 1999 was issued, after issuing a show cause notice under Section 3(2)
of the Act, after hearing the land owners, including the appellant. Thus, the
lands stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances as per
Section 4 of the said Act. By due notice in Form-E, the appellant was
required to surrender possession and possession was taken and the land was
handed over to SIPCOT. Thereafter, the proceedings for determination of
the compensation amount, as per Section 7 of the Act was initiated. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
notice, bearing R.C.No.5 of 2008, dated 20.03.2009 under Section 7(5) and
7(7) of the Act was issued. An Award was passed in Award No. 19/07 on
26/11/2011. Thereafter, the award amount has been deposited in Revenue
Account with the Government.
3. The SIPCOT had in-turn, subsequently, leased out portion of the
land acquired from the appellant along with the other larger extent of the
lands to one Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited by a lease
agreement, dated 04.09.2012 and the said lessee is in possession of the land
without having already built a compound wall for the entire extent of the
land leased out to them.
4. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed W.P. No. 32290 of 2007,
challenging the acquisition proceedings in R.C.No.3/97. The said Writ
Petition along with the other batch of Writ Petitions were taken up together
and by a common order, dated 03.06.2008, a learned Judge of this Court
dismissed the Writ Petitions upholding the land acquisition. However, in
paragraph No.94 of the said order, after noting that some portions of the
acquired lands were either used for religious purposes or for small scale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
industries purposes, it reserved liberty for such of those petitioners to
approach the Government for the purpose of withdrawal of the land
acquisition in respect of such pieces of land. Further, the learned Judge also
observed that some of the petitioners already carried on some industrial
activities which might itself can be referred as industrial purposes under the
Act 10 of 1999, it would be open for them to submit a representation to
SIPCOT after the completion of the acquisition proceedings and their cases
can be considered by the SIPCOT on merits in accordance with law for
allotment of industrial plots to them.
5. After the said order was passed, several other writ petitioners
whose writ petitions were also dismissed by the aforesaid common order,
filed Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, while the appellant
herein accepted the judgment of the learned Judge. Thereafter, on
12.06.2008, he made a detailed representation to the respondents stating that
he purchased the plot with an intention to start industrial catering
services/export oriented unit and therefore, he prayed that the Government
shall exclude his plots from acquisition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
6. Thereafter, by Judgment, dated 29.04.2011, the appeals preferred
by some of the other land owners were allowed by a Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.781 of 2008 etc. After the Judgment of the Division
Bench, the appellant made one more representation on 25.02.2013 quoting
the Division Bench judgment and requested that his prayer, to exclude his
land, may be considered by the Government.
7. The first respondent, namely the Principal Secretary to
Government, Industries (SIPCOT – LA) Department, by an order, dated
04.09.2013, considered the prayer of the appellant and found that since the
plot was kept only as a vacant land without any industrial activity and not
even any proposed activity was registered with the small industrial service
institute, rejected the prayer of the appellant.
8. Thereafter, once again, by a representation dated 13.02.2015, the
appellant prayed for the release of his land from acquisition. In his
representation, the appellant had submitted that in view of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter mentioned as Central Act 30 of 2013)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
prayed that the compensation has to be paid as per the said Act. The said
representation dated 13.02.2015, was forwarded to the fourth respondent by
the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the third respondent herein, by his
proceedings dated 09.03.2015, to consider representation and send an
appropriate reply to the appellant.
9. However, since no further action was taken, the appellant
approached this Court by way of W.P.No.9121 of 2016 and by an order,
dated 11.03.2016, a learned Judge of this Court directed the fourth
respondent to comply with the direction of the District Collector. In
compliance of the said order, an order was passed by the fourth respondent
on 09.08.2016, thereby, intimating him that an award, in respect of the land,
has been finalized under Section 7(2) & 7(3) of the Act 10 of 1999 and the
amount is remaining as a deposit in the Government account. As far as the
prayer in the representation, to adopt the provisions of Central Act, 30 of
2013, the appellant was informed that such prayers can be granted if only
there is a decision to that effect and rejected the representation of the
appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
10. Thereafter, on 12.06.2017, the appellant filed the present Writ
Petition No.16843 of 2017, initially with the following prayer :
“Writ of Declaration declaring that the Land
Acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1)
followed by Section 4(6) of the Old Act of 1894
pursuant to G.O.Ms.No,139, Industries (MIG.II)
Department, dated 03.11.2006 and the
TamilNadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997 as null and void in respect of
the land measuring an extent of 12 cents
comprised in Survey No.49/1A4 and 49/1B (part)
in Zone 1 measuring an extent of 10,800 Sq.ft
sanctioned layout DTCP No.87-222/LP 166 in
No.34 Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District, and deemed to have
lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of 24(2) of Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, (Central Act 30 of 2013) and pass such
further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case and thus render justice”.
11. A counter was filed by the respondents in the said Writ Petition
stating that Section 24 of the Central Act 30 of 2013 will be applicable only
in respect of the awards passed under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and this acquisition being under a different enactment, namely, Tamil
Nadu Act, 10 of 1999, the provisions have no application. Upon such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
counter affidavit, the appellant filed W.M.P.No.9014 of 2021 to amend the
prayer from the above extracted one to:
“Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
order or direction in the nature of Writ calling for
the records of the fourth respondent 09th August
2016 vide Ref.No.05/2016/Unit-I/B-5 and quash
the same and insofar as land comprised in Old
Survey Nos.49/1A4 and 49/1B and New Survey
Nos.190/5, 190/6 bearing D.T.C.P. Plot Nos.32 to
36 in Navin Nagar Layout of Oragadam village,
measuring an extent of 10800 Sq.ft. thereby
enabling the respondent to confer the benefit of
Provisions of Act 30/2013 as may be applicable
to the Petitioner, resulting in release of lands
referred to herein to the Petitioner and thus
render Justice”.
The above miscellaneous petition was allowed and the amendment
was permitted.
12. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing and by a Judgment
dated 26.08.2021, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no
merits in the prayer, by holding that the provisions of the Central Act, 30 of
2013 are not applicable to the instant acquisition and the challenge to all the
acquisition proceedings having been concluded by earlier judgment in
W.P.No.32290 of 2007 and the award, having been duly passed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
compensation deposited and dismissed the Writ Petition as devoid of
merits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the appellant.
13. The appellant, appearing party-in-person, taking us through the
material records of the case, firstly, submitted that the claim of the
respondents that an award, which has already been passed, is totally
unsustainable and even in a grievance petition submitted by him in the
Government of Tamil Nadu Petition Processing Portal, a remark was made
by the respondents that there is a case pending in W.P.No.16843 of 2017 and
only after the order is issued, the award will be passed. Therefore, he would
submit that the findings of the learned Judge that already an award is passed
is totally incorrect. He would further submit that while the Writ appeals
filed by the similarly situated land owners having been allowed, he should
have also been granted similar benefit. Further he also prayed for allotment
of an alternate site, stating an intention to immediately start an industrial
activity, which was also turned down by the respondents without application
of mind. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in The Principal Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chennai and Others Vs. M.Venkataraman and Another1 and the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
of a learned Single Judge in V.Geetha Lakshmi Vs. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary and Others2.
14. The appellant also filed written arguments, firstly, reiterating the
facts about issue Section 3(2) notice; Section 4(2) order of delivery of
possession; the earlier order in W.P.No.32290 of 2007; the details of the four
representations made by the petitioner on 12.06.2008, 16.03.2009,
27.01.2010 and 25.02.2013; extracting the relevant portion in the Writ
Appeal Nos.781 of 2008 etc., filed by the other land owners where under the
Court found fault with the order of the Collector in not individually
disposing off the objections of the land owners and allowing the Writ
Appeal; dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions against the Writ Appeal
order; order of the Principal Secretary dated 04.09.2013 refusing to exclude
the land of the appellant; the filing of the earlier W.P.No.9121 of 2016 and
the order, dated 09.08.2016 passed in compliance of the same.
15. The petitioner has also referred in detail about the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents and about the fact that even after expiry of
more than 12 years, the land being not put into any use and lying idle and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
barren and about the reply given to him for the queries under RTI
application, by which only the copy of the award, passed in Award No.19 of
2007, dated 27.04.2011 was sent to him while denying that the award was
earlier furnished to him.
16. Further, the appellant has reiterated his grounds regarding
improper taking of possession; neither serving of the award nor payment of
the award amount, especially when the compensation is not deposited into
Court and therefore, would urge this Court to arrive at the conclusions as
contained in his written submissions that the learned Judge has failed to
appreciate the Division bench order in W.A.No.781 of 2008 and the
dismissal of the S.L.P filed by the respondents; the fact that in the impugned
order dated 09.08.2016, the respondents informed that they will take a
decision about payment of compensation as per Central Act, 30 of 2013.
The appellant further urged that the learned Judge erred in not taking into
account the Advocate Commissioner's reports, regarding the utilisation of
the acquired land . The appellant agrees with the learned Counsel appearing
for the Government that Section 24 of the Central Act is not applicable and
therefore contends that the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
Writ Petitions by taking into consideration the judgment in Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and other3 and therefore, would
submit that this Court should consider the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act,
10 of 1999 and grant him the reliefs prayed for.
17. Mr. C. Kathiravan, the Learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for Respondents 1,3 &4 and Mrs. Sudharshan Sundar, the
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, reiterated their
contentions before the Learned Judge and supported the findings and
conclusions in the Judgment under appeal.
18. We have considered the oral and written submissions made by
appellant -in-person and the contentions for the learned counsel for the
respondents and have perused the material records of this case. In essence,
there are four grievances which are agitated by the appellant before this
Court. First, the appellant wants the Government to withdraw from the
acquisition of his land. He has challenged the land acquisition by a Writ
Petition No.32290 of 2007 and his rights qua the respondents stand
crystallized by the judgment, dated 03.06.2008 rendered in the said Writ
3 (2020) 8 SCC 129
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
petition. By the said judgment, the validity of the land acquisition
proceedings are upheld and by a direction in paragraph No.94 of the
judgment, the learned Judge had directed the Government to consider for
withdrawal from acquisition in respect of two contingencies : (i) if the land
in question is used for religious purpose, which is not the case of the
appellant, and (ii) if the land has already been used for an industrial purpose
or small scale industry. In this regard, the prayer of the appellant was
considered by the Government in terms of the Judgment and a speaking
order has been passed on 04.09.2013, whereby, finding that the land was
only vacant and there was no industrial activity and there was not even any
evidence of proposed activity, rejected the prayer of withdrawal from
acquisition. The said order has also become final and is not challenged by
the appellant. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the Government should
withdraw from acquisition of his land is without any merits and is rejected.
19. The second grievance of the appellant is that he proposed to start
an industrial catering services/export unit and therefore, on preferential
basis the respondents should have allotted him an alternate site of the same
extent. Even the said grievance is also covered by the said Order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
04.09.2013, directing the appellant to approach the SIPCOT and subject to
availability of land in any one of its industrial complexes, for the purpose of
industrial activity, if he satisfied the conditions of allotment of the land.
However, thereafter, by his further representation, dated 13.02.2015,
without making any specific proposal about any industrial activity and
praying for land allotment, the appellant once again prayed higher
compensation under the Central Act, 30 of 2013 in view of Section 24(2),
and also once again prayed for release of his land. Therefore, in the absence
of taking any effective steps for making a proposal to the respondents, for
any industrial activity and praying for any specific available alternate site,
this grievance of the appellant cannot also be countenanced. Further, the
liberty given by the Learned Judge in the Writ Petition will apply only if he
already using the land for industrial purposes or small scale industry, which
is not the case.
20. The third grievance agitated by the appellant is that by virtue of
the Central Act, 30 of 2013, more specifically Section 24(2) of the Act, the
earlier proceedings regarding acquisition/fixation of compensation stood
lapsed and once again he should be given present market value as mandated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
under the provisions of the Central Act. This claim of the appellant is
without any merits since Section 24 applies only in respect of the
proceedings of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is superseded by the
Central Act, 30 of 2013 and the acquisition in respect of the appellant's land
being under Tamil Nadu Act, 10 of 1999, the prayer of the appellant is
totally unsustainable. This apart, the learned Judge has also further
considered that even for arguments sake, it is viewed from the perspective
of Section 24, in the appellant's case, already possession has been taken and
the amount of compensation is also deposited and therefore, the contention
of the appellant placing reliance under Section 24 of the Central Act, 30 of
2013 is wholly misconceived. Further, after making a consequential prayer
in the writ petition that he should be granted the benefits under Central Act
30 of 2013, now in the Written Submissions, the appellant himself has now
agreed that the said provisions will not be applicable to his case and
accordingly, the said claims and contentions of the appellant with reference
to Central Act 30 of 2013 stand rejected.
21. The final grievance of the appellant is that appropriate
compensation has not been paid. The contention of the appellant that no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
award is yet passed basing on a reply given in the online grievance
redressal portal cannot be accepted because the appellant himself had made
query under the Right to Information Act and information has been given to
him by the fourth respondent on 31.07.2020 clearly mentioning that Award
No.19 of 2007 has been passed by the Collector in R.C.No.21 of 2007,
dated 27.04.2011 and a copy has also been supplied to him. Therefore, if he
is aggrieved by the compensation amount, he should have sought for a
reference under Section 8 of the Act and as per law, the matter would have
been referred to the Civil Court, which alone is competent to enhance the
compensation amount. The appellant, without following mandate of law,
has been making periodical representations and filing Writ Petitions before
this Court. The remedy of the appellant would be to seek a reference within
the period of limitation from the date on which the copy of the award is
supplied to him and he cannot pray for enhanced compensation by way of
the present writ petition.
22. The Judgments relied upon by the appellant are in totally different
factual and legal scenario. The judgment in W.A.No.239 of 2014 is relating
to the benefits of Repeal Act, when the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and
Regulation Act was repealed. Similarly, the judgment in W.P.No.24528 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
2001 relates to the proceedings under the same act and both Judgments are
of avail to the appellant. We find that land acquisition proceedings, having
concluded, the appellant, again, in the guise of different prayers, is trying to
reopen the concluded proceedings. There are absolutely no merits in the
Writ Appeal and hence dismissed. However, the appellant would be free to
approach the respondents for payment out of the compensation amount
lying in deposit.
23. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed with the above observation.
No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17313 of 2021 is closed.
(M.N.B., C.J.) (D.B.C.J.)
23.02.2022
Index : yes
Speaking order
grs
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Industries Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.M/s.SIPCOT,
Represented by its Managing Director,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Street,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4.The Social Tahsildhar (LA),
SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, C.J
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
grs
Pre-Delivery Judgment in
W.A.No.2660 of 2021
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
