Madras High Court
Mrs.Jayanthi Harikrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 September, 2023
2023:MHC:4200
WP No.21192 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15-09-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.21192 of 2014
And
MP Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2014
Mrs.Jayanthi Harikrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Industries,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit – II, SIPCOT,
Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
4.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT Unit-III,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the Acquisition Notification in G.O.Ms.No.113, Industries
(SIPCOT-LA), on the file of the first respondent issued under Sub Section
(1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial
Purposes Act, 1997, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
Extraordinary No.149-Part-II-Section 2 dated 04.06.2012 relating to the
property scheduled therein and in so far as the petitioner's property is
concerned, being the housing site in Plot No.933 Comprised in Survey
No.306/2 measuring to an extent of 2400 square feet in 180, Mathur
Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and the
consequential notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act 10 of 1999) issued by the
second and third respondents in their proceeding in Rc.No.6/2009 Unit II
dated 24.01.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent to conduct personal hearing as per show cause under Section
14(1a)(bi)(i2) and (d) r/w Rule 3 (Form A) or under Section 15 r/w Rule 4
(Form B) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to give explanation to the
said show cause notice.
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja Sekhar
For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent-4 : Mr.G.Suresh Kumar,
Standing Counsel for SIPCOT.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
Acquisition Notification in G.O.Ms.No.113, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), on
the file of the first respondent issued under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.149-
Part-II-Section 2 dated 04.06.2012 relating to the property scheduled therein
and in so far as the petitioner's property is concerned, being the housing site
in Plot No.933 Comprised in Survey No.306/2 measuring to an extent of
2400 square feet in 180, Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District and the consequential notice under Section 4(2) of
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Act
10 of 1999) issued by the second and third respondents in their proceeding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
in Rc.No.6/2009 Unit II dated 24.01.2014 and quash the same and
consequently direct the first respondent to conduct personal hearing as per
show cause under Section 14(1a)(bi)(i2) and (d) r/w Rule 3 (Form A) or
under Section 15 r/w Rule 4 (Form B) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner
to give explanation to the said show cause notice.
2. It is not in dispute that the lands belonging to the writ
petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition
of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that
no notice was issued to the writ petitioner as contemplated under the
provisions of the Act. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are to be
quashed.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
fourth respondent-SIPCOT submitted the copy of the judgment delivered by
this Court in respect of the same acquisition proceedings in a batch of writ
petitions in WP Nos.1878 and 1879 of 2014 etc batch of cases dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
13.08.2021.
5. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings in the
batch of writ petitions and the present case, are relating to the same location.
The grounds raised by the writ petitioner is relating to violations of
procedures, which were elaborately considered by this Court in the said
batch of writ petitions and judgment was delivered on 13.08.2021.
6. The very same grounds are taken in the said batch of writ
petitions (cited supra) also. There is a specific finding in the judgment, cited
supra, that all the petitioners were duly served notice under Sub Clause (2)
of Section 3 of the Act. After receipt of notice, some of the petitioners
submitted their objections and those objections were duly placed before the
fourth respondent, who is the Requisitioning Body as contemplated under
Rule 6 (b) of the Act. After obtaining remarks from the Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition), an enquiry was conducted and recommendations were
forwarded to the Government for issuance of Notification under Sub
Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
7. In the judgment of the said batch of writ petitions, cited
supra, the Court made a finding that notice was served to all the petitioners
and the present writ petitioner also is a party in respect of the same
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Acquisition of Land for
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The other relevant portions of the judgment
cited supra, wherein in paragraphs-13, 14, 15 and 16, the following
observations are made:-
“13. Accordingly, the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall cease to apply to
any land which is required for the purpose
specified under The Tamilnadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
Therefore, Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and Section 3 sub-clause (2) of the Act are
not connected each other.
14. That apart, as stated supra, all the
petitioners were duly served notice under Section
3 (2) of the Act and some of the petitioners
submitted their objections and also attended
enquiry. Therefore, there is no violation of the
procedures as contemplated under Sections 3 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
and (3) of the Act read with Rule 6 (b) & (c ) of
the Act, and there is no violation of Article 300 A
of the Constitution of India.
15. In view of the above discussion, all the
writ petitions do not have merits and are liable to
be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that The Tamilnadu
Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,
1997 itself is challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the petitioners
are at liberty to challenge the proceedings subject
to the result of the special leave petitions.
16. With the above observations, all the
writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
order as to costs.”
8. In view of the fact that batch of writ petitions on the same
issue has been already considered by this Court elaborately and those writ
petitions are dismissed, there is no reason to reconsider the issues already
adjudicated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
15-09-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Industries,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Unit – II, SIPCOT,
Oragadam Expansion Scheme – II,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Managing Director,
SIPCOT Unit-III,
Sriperumbudur Expansion Scheme,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21192 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 21192 of 2014
15-09-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
