Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar (L.A) vs G.Sandhya Reddy on 21 June, 2021
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
and C.M.P.Nos.7699 and 7769 of 2018
1.The Special Tahsildar (L.A)
SIPCOT,
TACID Division, Oragadam Scheme,
Irungattukottai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. .. Appellant
in both Writ Appeals
Vs
G.Sandhya Reddy .. Respondent
in W.A.No.870 of 2018
R.Lakshminarayanan .. Respondent
in W.A.No.893 of 2018
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
(i) dated 02.11.2004 made in W.P.No.28202 of 2004 and (ii) dated
18.08.2004 made in W.P.No.23574 of 2004.
For Appellant
(in both W.As) : Ms.Sudharsana Sundar for R1
Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh for R2
For Respondent
(in both W.As) : Ms.Shobana Ramasubramanian
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
These appeals have been preferred against the orders of the
learned Single Judge, who while allowing the writ petitions, recorded
the submission made by the counsel appearing for both the parties,
inter alia, holding as follows:
(i) W.P.No.23574 of 2004 dated 18.08.2004:
2.The notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1999
is challenged before this Court on the ground that
petitioner being the owner of the land, which is sought to
be acquired, has not been given individual notice and the
notice challenged in this writ petition is a general notice to
all persons interested.
3.A reading of Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the said
Act clearly shows that notice should be served on the
owner of the property to the acquired and any other
person who may be interested in the land shall also be
called upon to explain by issuing a show cause notice.
Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is right. Accordingly, the impugned order is
quashed reserving the liberty of the acquiring authority to
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
issue notice to the individual owners concerned or any
person interested about the proposed acquisition and
asking for their explanation. The writ petition is ordered
accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(ii) W.P.No.28202 of 2004 dated 02.11.2004:
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the Government Advocate submits that this writ
petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated
28.09.2004 in W.P.No.27578 of 2004 and a similar order
may be passed in this writ petition also.
3. Following the order passed in W.P.No.27578 of
2004, the impugned order is quashed reserving the liberty
of the acquiring authority to issue notice to the individual
owners concerned or any person interested about the
proposed acquisition and asking for their explanation.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
these appeals will have to be decided on their own merits and there is
no consent as recorded by the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that
nothing survives for consideration in these appeals in view of the
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
subsequent development, particularly, the writ petition filed by the
purchaser has been allowed.
4. We do not want to go into the merits of the case. As a Court
of record, if there is a wrong recording, the only remedy open to the
party is to seek review.
5. Be that as it may. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petitions based upon the earlier orders passed without making any
discussion notwithstanding the dispute raised atleast before us that the
connected writ petition does not have any rationale or applicable to the
case on hand.
6. In such view of the matter, the orders of the learned Single
Judge stand set aside and as a consequence, the writ petitions stand
restored. Registry is directed to post the writ petitions before the
learned Single Judge having the Roster. We request the learned Single
Judge to take up the matter and dispose of the same, considering the
long pendency.
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
7. The writ appeals stand allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
21.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.Nos.870 and 893 of 2018
21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
