Madras High Court
Dhanapathyammal Self Employment And vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 11 December, 2023
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02.11.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
and WMP.Nos.10225, 10226, 15767,
15770 to 15772 & 15774 of 2022
W.P.No.10536 of 2022
Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and
Education Development Trust (DSEDT),
rep.by Director, R.Parthiban ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Chief Financial Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
4.The Hon'ble Minister,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
5. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
6. The General Manager, (P-II)
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
7.The Project Officer,
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center,
R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai,
Tamil Nadu 638 052.
8. The Chairperson,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
9. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development,
Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
10. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and
Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 2 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
11. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and
Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
12. The General Manager-Administration,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
13. The General Manager-Technical
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
14. The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
15. K.Manivasan
16. S.Mudhumathi
17.Vijayarani
18.K.Vivekanandan
19.T.Anand
20.H.Krishnanunni
21.H.Prabavathy
22.K.Alagupandian
23.R.Saraswathi
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 3 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
24. M.Nisha
25.M/s.Best Corporation Private Limited,
2nd Street, Avinashi-Trippur Road,
Padmavathipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu 641 603.
26. M/s.Valasumani Farm Machineries Private Limited,
42, Sivagari, Muthur Road, Erode,
Tamil Nadu 638 109.
27. M/s.RBWovens Private Limited,
59, Raja Street, Sanjay Nagar,
Narayanavalasu, Erode,
Tamil Nadu 638 011.
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
respondents relating to the Order No.PO/SIP-P/TAHDCO/2022 dated
10.02.2022 passed by the 7th respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 14, to pass necessary orders
allotting 150.35 Acres including the 200 sheds constructed in the
SIPCOT land at INGUR Perundurai, Erode, for 99 years lease, for one
time lease amount of Rs.3 Crores together with the loan of Rs.5 Crores
for alteration/maintenance of the aforesaid 200 sheds, to the petitioner
Trust.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Haribabu,
& Mr.P.Munusamy
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 4 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
For R1 to R5,
R15 to R18 & R20 : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mrs.C.Sangamithirai
For R6 & R7 & R19 & R21 : Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Karthikjeyan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
For R8 to R14, R22 to R24 : Mr.C.A.Ashok Kumar
For R25 to R27 : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel
W.P.No.16482 of 2022
Dhanapathyammal Self Employment and
Education Development Trust (DSEDT),
rep.by Director, R.Parthiban ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (SCP)Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Managing Director,
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 5 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4.The Project Officer,
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
R40, SIPCOIT, Perundurai,
Tamil Nadu 638 052.
5. The Managing Director,
Adi Dravidar Housing and
Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
6. K.Manivasan
7.Vijayarani
8.K.Vivekanandan
9. K.Alagupandian
10.M/s.Best Corporation Private Limited,
2nd Street, Avinashi-Trippur Road,
Padmavathipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu 641 603.
11. M/s.Valasumani Farm Machineries Private Limited,
42, Sivagari, Muthur Road, Erode,
Tamil Nadu 638 109.
12. M/s.RBWovens Private Limited,
59, Raja Street, Sanjay Nagar,
Narayanavalasu, Erode,
Tamil Nadu 638 011. .. Respondents
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 6 of 51
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
By this common order both these writ petitions are being disposed.
2. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed by the same person.
Relief sought for in these writ petitions, read as under:-
TABLE - 1
W.P.No.10536 of 2022(filed on W.P.No.16482 of 2022(filed on
22.04.2022) 27.06.2022)
For the issuance of a Writ of For the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the Order the records relating to the allotment
No.PO/ SIP-P/ TAHDCO/ 2022 orders bearing No.P-I/SIGC-P/Best
dated 10.02.2022 passed by the 7 th Corporation/2021, bearing Ref.No.
Respondent and quash the same and P-I/ SIGC-P/ Valasumani/2021,
consequently direct the bearing Ref.No.P-I/ SIGC-P/RB
Respondents 1 to 14, to pass Woven/2021 dated 26.02.2021 for
necessary Orders allotting 150.35 the total extent of 48.78 Acres of
Acres including the 200 sheds land, issued by 4th respondent in
constructed in the SIPCOT land at favour of 10 th, 11 th& 12 th
INGUR, Perundurai, Erode, for 99 Respondents respectively,
years lease, for one time lease culminating into Lease Deeds
amount of Rs.3 Crores together bearing Doc.Nos.2995 of 2021,
with the loan of Rs.5 Crores for 2996 of 2021 & 2994 of 2021,
alteration/maintenance of the SRO, Perundurai, all dated
aforesaid 200 sheds, to the 22.04.2021, executed by 4th
Petitioner Trust.”
Respondent pertaining to 10 th, 11 th&
12 th Respondents respectively, & the
consequential letter (MS)
No.10/SCP/2022 dated 02.03.2022
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
W.P.No.10536 of 2022(filed on W.P.No.16482 of 2022(filed on
22.04.2022) 27.06.2022)
issued by the 1st respondent and
quash the same and direct the
respondents 1 to 5 to lease out the
land of an extent of 150.35 Acres
including the 200 sheds constructed
in the SIPCOT land at INGUR,
Perundurai, Erode, in accordance
with the applicable Government
Orders.”
3. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 has been passed by the
7th respondent in W.P.No.10536 of 2022/4th Respondent in
W.P.No.16482 of 2022, namely, The Project Officer, State Industries
Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited/, Industrial Growth
Centre, Perundurai.
4. The order dated 10.02.2022 impugned in W.P.No.10536 of
2O22 is addressed to the District Collector, Erode. The Impugned order
dated 10.02.2022 reads as follows:-
“With Reference to the 1st Cited, we wish to inform
that M/s.TAHDCO was allotted to an extent of
150.35 acres of land by erstwhile TACID as per
G.O.Ms.No.58/AD & TW Department dated
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
28.03.1995 at the rate (Land Acquisition Cost) of
Rs.1.35 lakhs per acre on 99 years long lease basis
for the purpose of knitwear based industrial units
exclusively for the benefit of Adi Dravidars and
remitted the entire land cost of Rs.203.00 lakhs on
05.04.1995.
Further, the site was handed over to M/s.TAHDCO
on 08.02.2003. The lease agreement was not yet
executed with us till now. Accordingly,
M/s.TAHDCO constructed 200 Nos. of sheds having
plinth area of 186 sq.m. to a size of 15.5m*12m
(Photos enclosed).
However, M/s.TAHDCO already created a separate
infrastructure inside the said Plot No.Q1 partially
like internal roads, Construction of Overhead Tank
(50,000 litres capacity), UG sump, 3 Nos. of
borewells, connectivity pipeline to the bath rooms
and toilets, etc. The entire value of the assets created
for utility of industrial purpose in one part of the
said plot was diluted due to non usage for more than
20 years.
At present, there is no industries functioning so far
and the buildings are under damaged condition in all
means due to non-utilisation of building.
In the above circumstances, the unutilised portion of
48.78 acres were taken possession by SIPCOT on
11.02.2021 and the same was allotted to three
companies viz.,
1. M/s. Best Corporation Private Limited – Plot
No.Q-4/22.36 acres*
2. M/s. Valasumani Farm Machines Private Limited
– Plot No.Q-3/8.95 acres*
3. M/s. R B Wovens Private Limited – Plot No.Q-
2/17.38 acres*
This is for favour of kind information please.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Encl.: As above. Yours faithfully Project Officer”
(* private respondents in the respective writ petition)
5. In W.P.No.10536 of 2022, the petitioner has also prayed for a
consequential direction to the official respondents No.1 to 14 to pass
necessary orders for allotting 150.35 acres including 200 sheds
constructed in the SIPCOT Industrial, Growth Centre at Ingur,
Perundurai for a period of 99 years.
6. Writ petition against R1, R3, R4 & R15 to R24 in
W.P.No.10536 of 2022 were dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2022 as
the Respondent No.5 to 14 and 25 to 27 alone are the contesting
respondents.
7. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.16482 of 2022 on 27.06.2022,
for a wider relief to call for the records relating to three separate allotment
orders dated 26.02.2021 bearing reference P-I/SIGC-P/Best
Corporation/2021, allotting an extent of 48.78 acres of land in favour of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
the private respondents namely the 10th, 11th and 12th respondent in
W.P.No.16482 of 2022 who are the 25 th, 26th & 27th respondent in
W.P.No.10536 of 2022.
8. Impugned letters dated 26.02.2021 impugned in W.P.No.16482
of 2022 is in respect of three different allotment letters issued to the
respective private respondent allotting lands to them together with
conditions stipulated therein.
9. As the prayer in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 reference to 22.04.2021
pertains to three lease deeds executed by the Project Officer of SIPCOT in
favour of the private respondents namely, the 10th, 11th and 12th
respondent in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 who are the 25th, 26th& 27th
respondents in W.P.No.10536 of 2022.
10. By the aforesaid letter, the Principal Secretary to Adi Dravidar
Welfare Department has directed the SIPCOT to release the necessary
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
funds for refund of the lease amount for 48.78 acres of land at Ingur,
Perundurai out of 1.85 out of allotted to vacant.
11. Post facto, by letter dated 02.03.2022, bearing reference:
Letter (Ms).No.10/SCP/2022, the Principal Secretary to Government, has
requested the District Collector to take necessary action to refund the
lease amount for 48.78 acres of land in Ingur, Perudurai out of 150.35
acres to TAHDCO immediately.” Relevant portion of the order reads as
under:-
“ I am directed to invite your attention to the
references cited and to stated that in the
reference 1st cited, G.O.(Ms).No.165 Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated
15.07.1992, orders were issued for the
formulation of a scheme by TAHDCO for
establishing two knit wear based Industrial
Estates exclusively for the benefit of Adi
Dravidars one each at Mudalipalayam,
Coimbatore District and another at Ingur in
Erode District for creation of a class of
enterpreneurs among the Scheduled Castes.
2. In the reference 2nd cited G.O.(Ms).No.58, Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated
28.03.1995 orders were issued permitting the
Managing Director, TAHDCO to take over the
allotment of an extent of 150.35 acres of compact
block of lands in S.No.2, 4 etc., in Ingur Village,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Perundurai Taluk, Periyar District from TACID
(now SIPCOT), Madras on lease-basis for a
period of 99 years.
3. In the reference 3 cited, G.O.(Ms).No.59, Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated
28.03.1995, the Government sanction a sum of
Rs.1600 lakhs initially from the Special Central
Assistance funds available with TAHDCO for the
construction of 200 hosiery units at the rate of
Rs.8.00 lakhs per unit in Ingur Village, near
Perundurai, Periyar District pending finalisation
of units cost, pattern or financial assistance and
selection of beneficiaries list. The above
expenditure shall be adjusted from the project
cost, later on.
4. In the letter 06.01.2021, the Managing
Director, SIPCOT has stated that SIPCOT has
cancelled the unutilized land measuring 48.78
acres at SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, as per the sketch and the refund
towards the probable extent of land cancelled
shall be made as per the prevailing policy of
SIPCOT, after adjustment of accrued dues.
5. In the reference 5th cited, you have been
requested to freeze the action of resuming back
the land measuring 48.78 acres of land in Ingur,
Perundurai till the final decision taken in the
matter, as the matter could not be decided
unilaterally and also the lease period has not
been lapsed.
6. The above subject was placed in the 221 th
Board of Directors of TAHDCO held on
23.09.2021 and board has decided to send a
proposal to Government. Hence, Managing
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Director, TAHDCO has sent proposal to get
either equal extent of land on lease from SIPCOT
or to refund the lease amount by SIPCOT for the
land resumed by them.
7. In this connection, after careful examination
the Government has decided to request SIPCOT
to refund the lease amount for the land resumed
by them, as the lease period has not been lapsed.
8. I am therefore to request yu to take necessary
action to refund the lease amount for 48.78 acres
of land in Ingur, Perudurai out of 150.35 acres
to TAHDCO immediately.”
Yours faithfully,
Principal Secretary to Government”
12. Table below gives the details of the impugned allotment orders
all dated 26.02.2021 of the Project Officer, State Industries Promotion
Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, SIPCOT, Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, in 4th respondent W.P.No.16482 of 2022 / the 7th respondent
in W.P.No.10536 of 2022. The total extent of land allotted in favour of
the private respondents are continued below :-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
TABLE - 2
Respondent in Writ petitions Impugn Bearing Total Cost of Consideration
W.P.No.105 W.P.No.1648 ed Referenc Extent per :
36/22 2/22 Allotme e: of land acres
nt allotted
Order in acres:
dated
25th 10th 26.02.2021 P- 22.36 Rs.7,84,37,20 35,07,924.86
Respondent Respondent I/SIGC 0
-
M/s.Best Corporation
Pvt.Ltd., P/Best
Corpor
ation/2
26th 11th 26.02.2021 P- 9.00 3,15,78,800 35,08,555.55
Respondent Respondent I/SIGC
-
M/s.Valasumani Farm
Machines Pvt.Ltd., P/Vala
sumani
/2021
27th 12th 26.02.2021 P- 17.42 6,11,72,456 35,11,622.00
Respondent Respondent I/SIGC acres
-P/RB
M/s.R.B.WovensPvt.L
td., Woven
/2021
Total 48.78
acres
13. Land measuring an extent of 150.37 acres was originally
allotted to the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development
Corporation (herein after referred to as TAHDCO, for the sake of
convenience), by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Development Ltd. (TACID), under notification G.O.Ms.No.58, Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 28.03.1995, at the rate
(Land Acquisition Cost) of Rs.1.35 lakhs per acre on 99 years long lease
basis pursuant to G.O.(Ms.)No.165, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department dated 15.07.1992.
14. The land was allotted to TAHDCO for the purpose of setting up
a knitwear based industrial units exclusively for the benefit of person
belonging to Adi Dravidar Community.
15. Entire cost of Rs.203.00 lakhs was also paid to TACID. The
site was also handed over to TAHDCO. After the land was allotted to
TAHDCO, TACID was amalgamated with the State Industries Promotion
Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) in 2003.
16. SIPCOT however, failed to execute a 99 year old lease deed in
favour of TAHDCO, even though, entire lease consideration of Rs.203
Lakhs was received by TACID from the Government of Tamil Nadu.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
17. Over the land, TAHDCO had also reportedly constructed 200
sheds of plinth area of 186 sq.m. to a size of 15.5m * 12 m and had
created further infrastructure inside each shed for the purpose of scheme.
18. Applications were to be processed by Tamil Nadu Industrial
Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) adopting the procedure that was
being followed. While sanctioning loans to entrepreneurs, TIIC was to
hold workshops/seminars, wherein applicants were to be invited and
explained of the scheme.
19. There are no documents filed by the TAHDCO to show that
any meaningful steps were taken to ensure that the scheme under the
above mentioned notifications were implemented and were realized by
training the entrepreneurs as was required under the notification.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
20. The Government selected 26 candidates and 30 candidates
were selected and kept in waiting list. 200 Sheds that were constructed
did not see any use due to lack of interest, reluctance on the part of
beneficiaries .
21. Later, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.75, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Department, dated 06.09.2000, cancelled the selection of
26 applicants as they were not interested in commencing venture. The
project however did not take off due to lack of awareness and various
other factors including lack of resource among entrepreneurs from the
members of the community for whom the scheme was targeted
22. G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
dated 30.12.2002 was issued as per which even groups of men who
formed a cohesive unit were to be encouraged to get the industrial sheds
allotted. Relevant clause for encouraging Self Help Groups in
G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated
3.12.2002 reads as under:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
“Self Help Gropus:
The Government direct that while selecting the
beneficiaries, Managing Director, TIIC should
encourage Self Help Groups to undertake suitable
projects based on their experience. Even groups of
men who form a cohesive unit can also be
encouraged.”
23. The Managing Director of TIIC was directed to ensure that the
selection of 200 beneficiaries of the Ingur Industrial Estate and 46
beneficiaries for the Mudalipalayam Industrial Estate was to be taken up
by TIIC based on the financial viability of the project, networth, expertise
of the promoter, willingness and capability of the entrepreneurs to
undertake commercially viable project.
24. The system of selection was through a Committee constituted
by the Government in G.O.(Ms)No.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department dated 01.02.1993 was superseded. After the selection of
beneficiaries, TIIC was to get prior clearance of the Government for the
list of the beneficiaries before sanctioning loan applications. Thus, multi
pronged steps were taken to ensure that the projects reaches the
beneficiaries.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
25. The petitioner appears to have filed application for allotment of
the sheds as a cohesive Self Help Groups/group of men in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.110 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated
3.12.2002. The Government also directed the Managing Director,
TAHDCO to release advertisement calling for application through one
English and one Tamil daily.
26. The petitioner appears to have sent several letters since 2009
to not only to the Respondent, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department (TAHDCO), Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited (TIIC) but also to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
27. By letter dated 29.09.2009, the Commissioner of Adi Dravidar
Welfare Department in his communication to the Managing Director
TAHDCO merely acknowledged the receipt of the application filed by the
petitioner and informed that suitable steps will be taken by later.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
28. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department by letter dated 24.11.2009, forwarded the application of the
petitioner to the Managing Director, TAHDCO forwarded the application
and directed the Managing Director of TAHDCO to inform the petitioner
about the steps being taken for allotting the RCC sheds to the petitioner
out of 200 sheds built in Ingur in Perundurai Erode District. Relevant
portion of letter dated 24.11.2009 of the Commissioner , Adi dravidar
and Tribal Welfare Department addressed to the Managing Director,
TAHDCO reads as under:-
“e/f/vz; /vr; 1/26730/09 ehs; : 24.11.2009
ma;ah.
bghUs; :Mjpjpuhtplh; eyk; -<nuhL khtl;lk;
-bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh K:yk;
fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw;Tl';fs;
RCC Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy
Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; rk;ge;jkhf/
ghh;it : jpU/ ,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; B.E., L.L.B., ,af;Feh;
jdgjp mk;khs; Rantiytha;g;g[ fy;tp kw;Wk;
r\fnkk;ghl;L mwf;fl;lis mynkYg[uk;.
tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk;/
<nuhLkhtl;lk; bgUe;Jiw jhYf;fh <';Th; jhl;nfh\yk;
fl;lg;gl;l 200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs; RCC
Shed kw;Wk fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F ntz;oaJ
Fwpj;j kDit eltof;if vLf;Fk; bghUl;L ,j;Jld;
,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ. nkw;go eltof;ifapd;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
tptuj;ij kDjhuUf;F bjhptpf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
Mjpjpuhtplh; ey MizaUf;fhf/”
29. Since the petitioner did not receive any positive feedback from
the Managing Director of TAHDCO, the petitioner has also approached
the Chief Minister’s Cell. The Chief Minister’s Cell has also sent a
reminder to the Office of the Managing Director of TAHDCO. Thus, by
letter dated 21.12.2009, the Managing Director of the TAHDCO
responded to the Chief Ministers Cell and stated as follows:-
“f.vz;.vr; 5/2582/09 ehs; :21.12.2009
bgWeh;
jdpmYtyh;.
Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[.
g[dpj $hh;$; njhl;il.
brd;id– 9.
Iah.
bghUs; :<nuhL khtl;lk; - bgUe;Jiw
jhYf;fh- <';Th; - jhl;nfh \yk; fl;lg;gl;l
200 vz;zpf;if bfhz;l bjhHpw; Tl';fs;
RCC Shed kw;Wk; fhyp ,lk; ePz;lfhy
Fj;jiff;F ntz;Ljy; Fwpj;J.
ghh;it : jdgjpmk;khs; Ra ntiytha;g;g[
fy;tp kw;Wk; r\fnkk;ghl;L mwf;fl;lis
tpGg;g[uk; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd; mth;fspd;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
fojk; kw;Wk; Kjyikr;rhpd; jdpgphpt[
f/vz;.281422.ER/A91/09, ehs;: 23.10.2009
ghh;itapy; fhqk; kDjhuh; jpU.,uh.ghh;j;jpgd;
mth;fs; jkpHfj;jpy; cs;s midj;J Mjpjpuhtplh;
khztpah; khzth;fs; eyd; kw;Wk; ntiyapy;yh
gl;ljhhpfSf;F bjhHpy; Kidnthh; gapw;rp ikak;
Muha;r;rpikak; bjhHpy; El;gk; kw;Wk; kUj;Jt fy;Yhhp
,ytr kUj;Jt nritikak; mikf;f <';Th; Tl';fs;
kw;Wk; fhypapl';fs; ePz;lfhy Fj;jiff;F tH';f
nfhhpa[s;shh;/
muR Miz vz;.110d; go jkpH;ehL bjhHpy; KjyPl;L
fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR
Miz bgw;w gpwF bjhHpw; Tlk; xJf;fpj;ju
Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW epjp
epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gLk;
gadhspfSf;F bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f muR Mizapy;
jpUj;jk; nfhhp jhl;nfhtpd; Kd; bkhHpt[
rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. jhl;nfhtpd; Kd; bkhHptpw;F
murplkpUe;J Mizg; bgwg;gl;lJk; gadhsp nfhhpa
bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd
bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/
nkyhz;ik ,af;FeUf;fhf/”
30. It appears that a proposal was submitted before TAHDCO to
amend the Government Order to allot factories to the beneficiaries who
could get loans from other financial institutions. It was informed that a
decision will be taken once the order is received from the Government
before TAHDCO, for Managing Director.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
31. Thus, it was informed that the request of the petitioner to get
loan from other Financial bodies was under consideration and suitable
amendment will be made to G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department dated 30.12.2002 after getting necessary permission
of the Government. As late as, 27.12.2013, the petitioner had sent a
letter to Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation
(TAHDCO).
32. It appears that the petitioner thereafter did not follow with the
respondent and assumed that G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 30.12.2002 will be
amended and industrial shed will be allotted to the petitioner.
33. Meanwhile, the Project Director, SIPCOT has however decided
to allot the land to measuring a total extent of 48.78 acres out of 150.35
acres in favour of the private respondents, even though, the land for all
practical purpose was under the control of TAHDCO although a Lease
Deed was never executed in favour of TAHDCO either by SIPCOT’s or
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
its predecessor namely TACID.
34. Thus, the possession of 48.78 acres out of 150.35 acres of land
is said to have been resumed by SIPCOT on 11.2.2021 and handed over
to the private respondents.
35. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that letter
dated 02.03.2022 of the Principal Secretary to Government, the content
of which has been extracted above cannot authorize to take over of the
land by SIPCOT, as a Government Order can be modified only by
another Government Order. The said letter of the Principal Secretary to
Government dated 02.03.2022 post facto cannot modify a Government
Orders. Land allotted to TAHDCO cannot be allotted to the private
respondents
36. In this connection, a reference is made to the decision of this
Court rendered in the following two cases:-
i. TAHDCO Contractors Association Vs.
The Principal Secretary to Government,
W.P.No.4314 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
ii. K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
and Ors., W.P.(MD).No.4921 of 2006.
37. That apart, it is submitted that the Government has also not
filed any counter. It is not for an officer of TAHDCO, to explain the
studied silence of the Government by stating that the Managing Director
of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation,
TAHDCO, was authorized to file affidavit on behalf of the Principal
Secretary to Government, the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department and the individuals R6, R7, R8 & R9.
38. It is submitted that the Government also cannot rely on the
counter filed by the SIPCOT. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
locus standi to question the allotment made in favour of the private
respondents.
39. Merely because deponent has been blacklisted as the
contractor, ipso facto will not mean that irregular resumption of land and
irregular allotment of land in favour of the private respondents can be
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
ignored.
40. The argument that the petitioner and the deponent who has
filed these writ petitions are different cannot be accepted as the Trust has
been constituted by the members of the same family which is given the
deponent wide powers.
41. Merely, because the petitioner is a registered Trust and is
meant to espouse the interest of downtrodden and persons from
marginalized section of the society, particularly those belonging to the
Adi Dravidar Community, appears ipso facto mean that the petitioners
intentions are not bonafide.
42. Whether the petitioner can act as a catalyst for ensuring the
objectives of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.165, Adi Dravidar
and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.07.1992, G.O.Ms.No.21, Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 01.02.1993 and
G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated
30.12.2002 are acted upon is highly debatable as the petitioner’s
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
managing trustee does not have a clean and unblemished track record.
43. Merely because 83 beneficiaries who were identified failed to
live up to the expectation of the Government which led to resulted in
cancellation of allotment of sheds ipso facto would not mean that the
project has to be abandoned and that the land earmarked for the welfare
of persons belonging to Adi Dravidar Community can be given away to
private entrepreneurs/industrial units.
44. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, dated 30.12.2002, the restriction of economic activity in the
industrial shed to knitwear was removed and was expanded to include of
types of unit that were financially viable and potentially viable. However,
it did not permit allotment of land to the private respondents taking away
the benefit welfare scheme.
45. There was no transparency in the allotment of land in favour of
the private respondent herein. Straight away, applications of the private
respondent were accepted and allotment were made out of turn. It shows
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
undue alacrity to making out of turn allotment.
46. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the following decisions:
i. M/s.Erusian Equipment and
Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West
Bengal and Another, (1975) 1 SCC 70;
ii. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs.
International Airport Authority of
India and Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489;
iii. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs.
State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 4
SCC 417;
iv. K.I.Shephard and Others Vs. Union of
India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431;
v. Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India,
(1994) 6 SCC 651; vi. Asia
Foundation and Construction Limited
Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I)
Limited and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 738;
vi. Union of India and Another Vs.
International Trading Co. and
Another, (2003) 5 SCC 437;
vii.Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd.,
Vs. Airports Authority of India and
Others, (2006) 10 SCC;
viii.Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs.
Union of India and Others; (2010) 13
SCC 427;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
ix. Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief
General Manager, Western Telecom
Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC
731;
x. Gorkha Security Services Vs.
Government (NCT of Delhi) and
Others; (2014) 9 SCC 105;
xi. State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu
Ingale and Others; 1995 SUPP (4) SCC
469;
xii.Raunaq International Limited Vs.
I.V.R. Construction Limited and
Others, (1999) 1 SCC 492;
xiii.Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam
Limited Vs. Girja Shankar Pand and
Others, (2001) 1 SCC 182;
xiv.Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai
Prakash University and Others, (2001)
6 SCC 534;
xv.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Keshav Bahadur and Others, (2004) 2
SCC 370;
xvi.Kannaiyan Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu, 2004 (4) MLJ 651;
xvii.Centre for Public Interest Litigation
and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others, (2012) 3 SCC 1;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
xviii.Uflex Limited Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and Others, (2022) 1 SCC
165;
xix. Shobha Suresh Jumani Vs. Appellate
Tribunal, Forfeited Property and
Another, (2001) 5 SCC 755;
xx. R.P.Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and
Others, (2005) 10 SCC 244;
xxi.K.Sampath Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu and Others,
MANU/TN/9958/2006;
47. The submission of Mr.S.Silambanan, learned AAG adopting
the counter affidavit of TAHDCO, in W.P.No.16482 of 2022 and drew
attention to paragraph 13. Paragraph 13 reads as follows:-
“13. A regards the averments made in Paragraph
15 and 20 of the affidavit, it is submitted, the
petitioner Trust, addressed a representation
dated: 20.10.2009, replied by TAHDCO that
MuR Miz vz;/110d; go jkpH;ehL
bjhHpy; KjyPl;L fHfj;jpd; \yk; fld;
tH';f xg;g[jy; mspj;J muR Miz bgw;w
gpwF bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;fpw;fhd
Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf ntW
epjp epWtd';fspd; \yk; fld; tH';f
xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gLk; gadhspfSf;F
bjhHpw;Tlk; xJf;f murhizapy; jpUj;jk;
nfhhp jhl;nfhtpy; Kd;bkhHptpw;F
murplkpUe;J Miz bgwg;gl;l gpd;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
gadhsp nfhhpa bjhHpw;Tlk; rk;ke;jkhf
Kot[ nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vd bjhptpj;Jf;
bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/”
48. The learned Senior Counsel for the SIPCOT would submit that
there were no representation by the petitioner after initial representation
in 2013. The petitioner Trust appears to be unaware about the allotment
to 83 beneficiaries and their subsequent cancellation. It is submitted that
Selection Committee consisting of 9 members was constituted by the
Government to chose the eligible allottees. Allotment was made to 83
beneficiaries vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 28.6.2002. G.O.Ms.No.60 dated
28.6.2002 was later cancelled vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 13.3.2020 as
there was no interest from beneficiaries.
49. The learned counsel Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, reiterated the
submissions and submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi is not
relevant for the reasons already submitted.
50. It is submitted that the Managing Trustee,
K.Dhanapathyammal died in the year 2019 and Mrs.R.Ananthayee died
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
around 5 years ago while Mrs.Mallika resigned in the year 2010.
51. He drew attention to paragraph 15 of the Common Counter
Affidavit of Best Corporation Private Limited” in W.P.No.10536 &
16482 of 2022. Paragraph 15 of the Common Counter Affidavit reads as
follows:
“It is submitted that the above two speculative Writ
Petitions filed by the Trust represented by its Director,
does not seem to be bonafide and genuine for the
following reasons:
a) The Trust was formed on 28.08.2009
with one Founder/Chairman, one
Managing Trustee and five Trustees.
b) Clause IX (a) of the Trust Deed Status
that All the executive powers of the
Trust shall vest with the Management
Trustee and he shall be the authority
to use and to be sued on behalf of the
Board of Trustee. Hence, the above
Writ Petitions filed by the Trust
represented by someone claiming to
be a Director, is contrary to
conditions of the Trust Deed.
c) In the Affidavit in support of the
above Writ Petitions, the deponent
states that Founder Trustee
K.Dhanapathyammal died in the year
2019, R.Ananthayee died 5 years ago,
Mallika and Anjalai resigned in the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
year 2010, but went on to claim that
he was appointed as a Director under
resolution dated 02.09.2009
(Pg.No.267 in the paper book of
W.P.No.16482/2022) signed by
P.Saraswathi, A.Rajalakshmi and
B.Abirami. It may be pertinent to note
that on the date of resolution i.e.,
02.09.2009 which was said to have
been passed within 4 days from the
formation of the Trust, was signed by
only two trustees while A.Rajalakshmi
was not a trustee at all.
d) The Trust Deed does not state that the
same has been formed solely for the
welfare of Adi Dravidar Community
or for the people belonging to the
Scheduled Caste. But it states that the
Trust is for the up-liftment of the
weaker section in the society
irrespective of creed or religion and
providing them systematically
education and foster social,
economic, cultural and educational
growth.
It is submitted that the above facts
demonstrate that the above Writ
Petitions have been filed by the Trust
represented by its Director, is to get a
direction from this Hon’ble Court for
allotment of the entire industrial plots
in 150.35 Acres with 200 industrial
sheds etc., to it in the guise of Trust.”
52. It is therefore submitted that only three Trustees were there,
namely Mrs.P.Saraswathi, Mrs.V.Abirami and Mrs.A.Rajeshwari. They
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and
Another, (2008) 2 SCC 280 wherein it was held that Before granting
the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest
which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to
overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of
all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which
will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the
surrounding facts and circumstances. Relevant portion of the said order
reads as under:-
“11. The principles on which a Writ of Mandamus
can be issued have been stated as under in The
Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G.
Ferris and F.G.Ferris, Jr.:
“Note 187. Mandamus, at common law, is a highly
prerogative writ, usually issuing out of
the highest court of general jurisdiction,
in the name of the sovereignty, directed
to any natural person, corporation or
inferior court within the jurisdiction,
requiring them to do some particular
thing therein specified, and which
appertains to their office or duty.
Generally speaking, it may be said that
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
mandamus is a summary writ, issuing
from the proper court, commanding the
official or board to which it is addressed
to perform some specific legal duty to
which the party applying for the writ is
entitled of legal right to have performed.
Note 192 - Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a
sound judicial discretion, the
appropriate remedy to enforce a plain,
positive, specific and ministerial duty
presently existing and imposed by law
upon officers and others who refuse or
neglect to perform such duty, when there
is no other adequate and specific legal
remedy and without which there would
be a failure of justice. The chief function
of the writ is to compel the performance
of public duties prescribed by statute,
and to keep subordinate and inferior
bodies and tribunals exercising public
functions within their jurisdictions. It is
not necessary, however, that the duty be
imposed by statute; mandamus lies as
well for the enforcement of a common law
duty.
Note 196 - Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its
issuance unquestionably lies in the sound
judicial discretion of the court, subject
always to the well-settled principles
which have been established by the
courts. An action in mandamus is not
governed by the principles of ordinary
litigation where the matters alleged on
one side and not denied on the other are
taken as true, and judgment pronounced
thereon as of course. While mandamus is
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is
largely controlled by equitable
principles. Before granting the writ the
court may, and should, look to the larger
public interest which may be concerned-
an interest which private litigants are apt
to overlook when striving for private
ends. The court should act in view of all
the existing facts, and with due regard to
the consequences which will result. It is
in every case a discretion dependent
upon all the surrounding facts and
circumstances.
Note 206 - The correct rule is that mandamus will
not lie where the duty is clearly
discretionary and the party upon whom
the duty rests has exercised his
discretion reasonably and within his
jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient
to support his action.”
12. These very principles have been adopted in our
country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen
Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh after
referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj
SathramdasLalvani v. N.M.Shah, Rai
Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College
and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar this
Court observed as follows in para 15 of the
Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh Case, SCC
pp.152-53)
“15. There is abundant authority in favour
of the proposition that a writ of
mandamus can be granted only in a
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
case where there is a statutory duty
imposed upon the officer concerned
and there is a failure on the part of
that officer to discharge the statutory
obligation. The chief function of a
writ is to compel performance of
public duties prescribed by statute
and to keep subordinate tribunals
and officers exercising public
functions within the limit of their
jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that
in order that mandamus may issue to
compel the authorities to do
something, it must be shown that
there is a statute which imposes a
legal duty and the aggrieved party
has a legal right under the statute to
enforce its performance. In the
instant case, it has not been shown by
Respondent 1 that there is any statute
or rule having the force of law which
casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4
which they failed to perform. All that
is sought to be enforced is an
obligation flowing from a contract
which, as already indicated, is also
not binding and enforceable.
Accordingly, we are clearly of the
opinion that Respondent 1 was not
entitled to apply for grant of a writ of
mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution and the High Court was
not competent to issue the same.”
Therefore, in order that a writ of
mandamus may be issued, there must
be a legal right with the party asking
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
for the writ of compel the
performance of some statutory duty
case upon the authorities. The
respondents have not been able to
show that there is any statute or rule
having the force of law which casts a
duty on the appellant Bank to declare
their account as NPA from
31.03.2000 and apply RBI Guidelines
to their case.”
53. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respective respondents. I have also perused the Government orders and
the documents filed along with these two writ petitions.
54. Unilateral resumption of land measuring an extent of 48.78
Acres out of 150.35 Acres of land allotted to the TAHDCO by the
SIPCOT and allotment 48.78 Acres of the land to the private respondents
is arbitrary and in excess of the powers vested with the SIPCOT.
55. The argument that no reason has been stated in the affidavit as
to why the petitioner Trust was in-active for 8 years in pursuing with the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Government for allotment of land is not relevant.
56. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for SIPCOT that
the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment, although
correct, cannot be ignored at the same time.
57. Even, if the petitioner lacked locus standi, the Court cannot
turn a Nelson’s eyes as the irregular allotment of the lands in favour of
the private respondents were made which are arbitrary and are therefore
liable to be declared to be irregular.
58. Even if the petitioner lacks the locus standi, the Court cannot
close its eyes to irregularity committed by the officials of SIPCOIT and
the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department allotting the lands to the
private respondents without following the due proper procedure. Irregular
allotment of land also do not justify the action of the SIPCOT.
59. These allotment of the land in favour of the private
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
respondents is also contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.
60. Interview conducted by the Selection Committee on basis
online application smacks of arbitrariness. Post facto, approval for
cancellation and resumption of land by SIPCOT and payment of the lease
amount for the resumed portion of the land is not sufficient.
61. The allotment of land should have also involved a public
auction by calling for a tender ensuring public participation so that the
best price could have been fixed.
62. There are also no records to show that proper advertisements
were made in the by SIPCOT before receiving applications from the
private respondents.
63. Further, SIPCOT has taken advantage of its own breach in not
executing the lease deed in favour of TAHDCO after having received
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
entire lease consideration from the Government after the land was allotted
to TAHDCO under G.O.Ms.No.58/AD & TW Department dated
28.03.1995.
64. The fact that the vacant land was being used as a playground,
grazing lands for cattle by the villagers, as pathway and that there was
also a small temple present in the said land did not justify resumption and
allotment of 48.78 acres of land to the private respondents.
65. Merely, because there is a huge demand for lands business
person for setting up and establishing industries was not a sufficient
reason to make irregular allotment.
66. Proper procedure ought to have been followed by SIPCOT
before even venture to resume the land from TAHDCO and in allotting it
to the private respondents.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
67. The fact that no Lease Deed was executed between SIPCOT
and TAHDCO, as TAHDCO wanted outright sale of the plot which was
not agreeable to SIPCOT is also irrelevant. One mistake will not justify
another mistake.
68. Post facto, letter of SIPCOT informing the allotment and
execution of lease in favor of the private respondents is also highly
arbitrary and is to be frowned upon.
69. The resumption of land to an extent of 48.78 Acres and their
allotment and further execution of lease deed in favour of the private
respondents by SIPCOT were irregular as scarce resource viz land meant
for achieving the laudatory objects of part IV of the Constitution of India
has been sacrificed on the altar in favour of the private respondents and
allotted in favour of the private respondents in an irregular fashion.
70. Therefore, resumption of land without a proper Government
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Order cancellation of previous Government Orders and allotment of land
in favour of the private respondents are liable to be declared as irregular.
71. Arbitrary decisions have been by SIPCOT with the Officials of
the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department to process applications
from the private respondents across the table to allot 48.78 acres of land
out of 150.35 acres of land from the Ingur Industrial park to the private
respondents was clearly without following proper procedure.
72. A proper procedure for resumption of land by SIPCOT should
have first preceded by a prior Government Order recalling, the earlier
Government Orders under which the land was allotted to TAHDCO.
73. However, the fact remains that the purpose for which the land
measuring an extent of 150.35 acres was allotted to TAHDCO in the year
1995 had not been achieved as the project never took off for which
various Government Orders were issued.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
74. The private respondents have put up their units/factories by
investing in the infrastructure. To ask these private respondents to vacate
the premises would mean imposing a incalculable harm on them for the
mistakes of the concerned officers from the Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department and SIPCOT.
75. To ask the private respondents to vacate and demolish the
factory would also mean loss of natural resources utilized in developing
therm. Court cannot order such drastic measures.
76. Therefore,48.78 acres of land out of 150.35 acres of land
allotted to the private respondents herein cannot be disturbed.
77. Therefore, to balance the interest of the parties, Court is not
inclined to disturb the possession of the land and their utilization by the
private respondents as they have developed units/infrastructure pursuant
to the impugned allotment letters on the land measuring at 48.78 acres
out of 150.37 acres.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
78. Therefore, the following orders are passed:-
i)The amount received towards lease deed from
the private respondents by SIPCOT is directed to
be transferred together with interest at bank rate
within a period of 30 days from today to
TAHDCO.
ii) The value of lease adopted in favour of the private
respondents shall be re-examined and revisited
and the difference in the market value of the land
that prevailed in 2021 shall be paid to TAHDCO
by the private respondents.
iii) The private respondents shall pay the difference
directly to the TAHDCO.
iv) The amount of lease to be transferred and
deposited to TAHDCO by SIPCOT and to be paid
by the private respondents shall be utilized for the
welfare activities to be under taken by TAHDCO.
v) The Government shall issue suitable notification
for regularizing allotment the land to the extent of
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
48.78 acres of land in favour of the private
respondents by the TAHDCO and regularize the
commercial activity of the private respondents
ensuring that the private rights of the private
respondents are not compromised except to the
extent specified herein. Petitioner request for
allotment of existing infrastructure may be
considered by suitably amending
G.O.Ms.No.110, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department dated 30.12.2002.
vi) The Government may issue suitable Government
Orders to ensure employment opportunities are
created in the land used by these private parties in
favour of the persons belonging to the Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Community for
whose benefit the land was allotted to TAHDCO
way back in the year 1993 vide G.O.(MS)No.21,
Adi Aravidar and Tribal Welfare Department
dated 01.02.1993.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
vii) This exercise shall be carried out by the
Government as expeditiously as possible within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
These writ petitions stand disposed of with the
above directions.
11.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kkd
Note : Registry is directed to return the
original files to the learned counsel for
SIPCOT
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
3.The Chief Financial Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Finance Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Hon'ble Minister,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
5. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Directorate,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
6. The General Manager, (P-II)
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
7.The Project Officer,
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd.SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center,
R40, SIPCOT, Perundurai,
Tamil Nadu 638 052.
8. The Chairperson,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
9. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development,
Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
10. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and
Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
11. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and
Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
kkd
12. The General Manager-Administration,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
13. The General Manager-Technical
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
14. The Executive Engineer, Coimbatore Division,
Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation,
No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Teynampet,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 018.
15.The Managing Director,
State Industries Promotion Corporation
of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT),
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
Pre-delivery Common Order in
W.P.Nos.10536 & 16482 of 2022
11.12.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
