IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.06.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.16922, 29294, 29090, 29113, 29707, 29708, 29709, 29710, 30019, 30020, 30021, 29575, 30255, 30256, 33294, 30062 and 32290 of 2007 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.P.No.16922 of 2007 1. M.Haridass 2. A.Muneeshwari 3. K.Jayadeepa 4. R.Balakrishnan 5. T.Shoba 6. L.R.Sudarsan 7. S.Jayanthi .. Petitioners in W.P.16922/07 K.Gomathi ..Petitioner in WP 29294/2007 Pastor K.Aaron Ananthan ..Petitioner in WP 29090/2007 N.Ravishankar ..Petitioner in WP 29113/2007 T.Parthiban ..Petitioner in WP 29707/2007 G.Ramachandran ..Petitioner in WP 29708/2007 S.William ..Petitioner in WP 29709/2007 G.Ramachandran ..Petitioner in WP 29710/2007 M.Santhi ` ..Petitioner in WP 30019/2007 M.S.Kumar ..Petitioner in WP 30020/2007 Kothai Venkataraman ..Petitioner in WP 30021/2007 J.Doraibabu ..Petitioner in WP 30255/2007 J.Sridhar ..Petitioner in WP 30256/2007 N.Rajendran ..Petitioner in WP 29575/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.Udhayakumar ..Petitioner in WP 30062/2007 1.M/s.Triway Container Freight Station Private Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director 2.Venkatapathy Naidu 3.Govindarajan 4.Krishnamurthy ..Petitioners in WP 33294/2007 M/s.Lakshmi Sastry construction company, rep. by its Partner V.K.Subbramanian ..Petitioner in WP 32290/2007. -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009. ... Ist Respondent in W.P.Nos.16922, 29294, 29090, 29113, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 29575, 30255, 30256, 30062 and 32290/07. Government of Tamilnadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Tax Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9 ... Ist Respondent in W.P.No.33294 2. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai – 600 008. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.16922, 29090, 29707, 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255 and 30256 4th Respondent in W.P.No.32290/07 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.Nos.16922, 29090, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255, 30256 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.29294, 29113, 29575, 33294, 30062 and 32290/07 4. The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Collector's Office Compound, Kancheepuram. 5. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), SIPCOT Oragadam Industrial Expansion Scheme Unit I, Alagu Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. ..5th Respondent in W.P.Nos.16922 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.29294, 29575, 30062 and 32290/07 4th Respondent in W.P.No.29090, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255, 30256/07 The Special Tahsildar (LA) SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme Phase -4 Sriperumbudur ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.29113, 29575, 33294/07 Prayer in W.P.No.16922 of 2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a 1. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 03.11.2006 and the consequential proceeding initiated in terms of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from proceeding any further pursuant to the said G.O. in respect of the lands of the petitioners approved lay out house sites of the petitioners bearing Plot No.52 comprised in Survey No.49/1A3; Plot No.564 comprised in Survey No.49/1A2; Plot Nos.131, 207 to 209; 215 to 217; and 517B forming part of Survey No.49/1A1 of Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chingleput District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. W.P.No.29294/07 to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of first respondent pertaining to the G.O.Ms. No. 177 (Industries) (sipcot L.A) dated 04.07.2007 and its consequential order dated 30.04.07 bearing Na.Ka. 8/07 U1/B6 under Sec.7 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial purpose Act passed by the third respondent and quash the entire acquisition proceedings ended in G.O.Ms.No. 177 (Industries) (SIPCOT L.A.) dated 04.07.2007 and also its consequential order dated 30.04.07 bearing Na.Ka.8/07 U1/B6 under Sec.7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purpose Act passed by the third Respondent. 3. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records Calling for the entire records ending with GO Ms.No.191 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2)/IND/360 (C/15)/2007 dt 4th July 2007 in respect of petitioners property situate at (i)Plot No.15, Navin Nagar, Messia st, Orakadam Junction, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram district, 602 105 (in W.P.29090/07) ii. Plot No.23,8,16,6 Navin Nagar, Second Stage Oragadam Junction, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram district 602 105. (in W.P.29707 to 29710/07) in 1. Survey No.49-1B14 Patta No.1325 of Village No.134 Orakadam Vilage, Measuring about 1800 sq. ft. and quash the same in W.P.29090/07) ii. Survey No.49/1B22, 49/1B32, 49/1B, 49/1B31 Oragadam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District 602/05 measuring about (1) 1800 sq.ft. (ii) 1800 sq.ft. 2100 sq.ft. and 1800 sq.ft. and quash the same. (in W.P.NO.29707 to 29710/07) and iii. Survey No.49/1B/1B Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District - 602 105 measuring about 23108 sq.ft. (53 cents) (in W.P.30019/07) and quash the same. 4. Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records comprised in Form A notice issued by the 3rd respondent dt 27.1.2007 declaration made under Section 3(1) in G.O.Ms.No.122, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dt 23.5.2007 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.133, dt 23.5.2007 and the consequential Form E notice dt 2.7.2007 in respect of the lands of the petitioner comprised in S.Nos.70/3, 70/7, 70/8, 70/9, 70/10, 70/13B, 70/13C, 70/14 , 70/17 and 70/18 situate in oragadam village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram district and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from acquiring the said lands of the petitioner (in W.P.29113/07) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records ending with GO Ms.No.188 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2) / IND/360 (C/12)/2007 dt. 04.07.2007 in respect of Petitioners property at plot No.916 and 915 Alamelugangapuram layout, situated at Survey No.49/1A2, SF.No.187-18 and 2. 49/1A2, SF.No.187-17 situated at No.134, Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District - 602 105 measuring about 2400 sq.ft. and 2. 2400 sq. ft. and quash the same.(in W.P.30020 and 30021/07) 6. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records ending with GO Ms.No.191 Industries(SIPCOT-LA) and No.II (2)/ IND/360 (C/15)/2007dated 4th July 2007 in respect of Petitioners property situated at (Manai SF.No.190-28 SurveyNo.49/1A3 (Survey No.49/3 as per Patta No.711 dated 6.1.2004 Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist 602 105 measuring about 1. 75 cents (26,585 sq.ft) and 2. 25 cents (8,862 square feet) respectively and quash the same (W.P.30255 and 30256/07) 7. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No. 177 (industries) (SIPCOT L.A.)dated 04.07.2007 and its consequential order dated 30.04.2007 bearing Na.Ka. A3/07 under Sec.7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purpose Act passed by the third respondent and quash the entire acquisition proceedings ended in G.O.Ms. No. 177 (Industries) (SIPCOT L.A) DATED 04.07.2007 and also it consequential order dated 30.04.2007 bearing Na.Ka. 8/2007 /U1 / B6 under Sec 7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for industrial purpose Act passed by the third respondent (in W.P.29575/07) 8. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of first respondent pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No. 191 (Industries) (SIPCOT L.A) dated 04.07.2007 and its consequential orders under Sec.7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purpose Act passed by the third respondent and quash the entire acquisition proceedings ended in G.O.Ms.No. 191 (Industries) (SIPCOT L.A) dated 04.07.2007 an also its consequential orders under Sec.7 of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act passed by the third respondent (in W.P.30062/07) 9. to issue a writ of certiorarified Calling for the records comprised in G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG II) Department, dt 3.11.2006 and the consequential land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subjects lands comprised in survey Nos.69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6, 71/8A1, 70/1 and 153/7A situate in Oragadam village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kancheepuram district and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from acquiring the said lands. (in W.P.33294/07) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Writ of Certiorarified mandamus Calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated __.8.2007 in R.C.NO.3/07 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.162/12, 162/13, 162/14, 162/17, 162/18, 162/19 & 162/20 situated in No.134 Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Chingleput District without finally adjudicating the claims of the petitioner which are admittedly pending before the Special District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition Sipcot as communicated by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.71822/2005-F5 dated 13.8.2007 (in W.P.No.32290/07) For Petitioners in W.P.No.16922/07 : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Ayyadurai. W.P.No. 29294/07 :M/s. C. Ravichandran W.P.Nos.29090, 29707 to 29710, 30019 to 30021, 30255, 30256 : M/s. S.D.S. Philip W.P.No.29113, 33294 : Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy Sr. Counsel for Mr.R. Karunagaran W.P.No.30062/07 : Mr.C. Ravichandran for R.Gandhimathi W.P.No.32290/07 : M/s. P. Seshadri W.P.No.29575/07 : NA For Respondents in W.P.No.16922/07 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.M.Devaraj for R2 and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, GA for R1,R3 to R5 C O M M O N O R D E R In all these cases the common issue involved relates to the challenge of G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 03.11.2006 and the consequential acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999) and consequently to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition pursuant to the G.O. in respect of the respective lands of the petitioners. In some of the cases declaration under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has been passed and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. In all these cases, the respective petitioners are owning approved housing plots, running shops, running small industries etc, in respect of various portions of the land situated in Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chingleput District. As it is stated in some of the cases, enquiry notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 have been challenged and in some other cases G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-2) Department dated 03.11.2006, granting administrative sanction for requisition of land for the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (for short SIPCOT) expansion have been challenged. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are middle class people either owning house sites or sites in which they are running various shops which are the only source of livelihood and the Government has issued administrative sanction order to acquire an total extent of 395.87.5 hectares of land in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages respectively. 4. The Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has come into force with effect from 21.09.2001. The State Government has announced industrial policy of Special Economic Zone in the year 2003 to generate additional economic activity, promote exports of goods and services and to promote investment from domestic and foreign sources to create employment opportunities and develop infrastructure facilities. 5. The Government of India has passed Special Economic Zone Act 2005 (Central Act 28/2005) which was assented by the President on 23.06.2005, with an object to provide for establishment, development and management of Special Economic Zones for the promotion of exports and for matters connected therewith. The said Act provides for setting up of Special Economic Zones by State Governments or its Agencies such as SIPCOT. It was pursuant to the said power, the State Government has passed the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provision) Act 2005, which came into effect from 08.08.2005. Under the provisions of the said Act, the State Government is empowered to acquire lands for establishment of Special Economic Zones by exercising power under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999). Therefore, according to the petitioners, the State Government while establishing Special Economic Zones for providing infrastructural facilities for the industries must obtain the approval of the Board or Central Government under the Central Act 28/2005. 6. The SIPCOT is a State owned institution established in the year 1972 for identifying, developing, maintaining industrial areas in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, it is the Agency of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Government within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Central Act 28/2005. The acquisition in these cases are stated to be initiated on the basis of request of SIPCOT for expansion of SIPCOT Oragadam Industrial Complex. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents in order to meet requirements of some Multi National Companies which requested lands for locating their industrial units and accordingly as per its direction, SIPCOT has identified the lands situated at Oragadam. It is the case of the petitioners that neither in the G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006, in which administrative sanction has been granted for acquisition nor in the counter affidavit it is disclosed that the lands in the present case are identified under the Central Act 28/2005 or under the Tamil Nadu Act 18/2005 dealing with Special Economic Zones. Nothing is stated about the approval of Board as required under the Central Act 28/2005 and therefore the initiation of acquisition proceedings under G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006 is without any authority and void ab initio. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Government has already acquired an extent of 636.88.0 hectares (1573.09.36 acres) by invoking urgency clause of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in and around Oragadam and eight other villages in the year 1997 for setting up SIPCOT Industrial Complex. Out of the said extent of 1575 acres sanctioned for acquisition in the year 1997, only 1507.34 acres were acquired and more than 70 acres of land have not been acquired despite sanction granted under G.O.Ms.No.125, Industries Department, dated 09.05.1997. It is the case of the petitioners that if the balance 70 acres of land covered under the earlier administrative sanction under G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 09.05.1997, were acquired, the lands of the petitioners would not have been required for the present purpose. There is no need for acquiring the lands of the petitioners. 8. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that District Collector, Kancheepuram in December 2005 conducted local enquiry preceded by the public notices and it is insisted that the acquisition itself is to enable unjust enrichment of some real estate business people and the District Collector, Kancheepuram in his report dated 22.06.2006, has given his recommendation based on which administrative sanction has been granted in G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006, to acquire 395.87.0 hectares of lands. According to the petitioners administrative sanction itself was issued subject to the objection of the local people to consider the relevant factors at the time of enquiry after notices under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 are issued. The Notices under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 in Form 'A' were signed by the Special Thasildar (LA), Oragadam Industrial Complex Expansion at Sriperumbudur, who has been made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. While admitting some of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions viz., 3112/07, 4953/07, 4954/07 etc. interim orders have been passed stating that acquisition will be subject to the result of the writ petitions and ultimately, those writ petitions were withdrawn. 9. During April 2007, the requisition body viz., SIPCOT has offered compensation at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. It is also admitted that many of the owners after announcement of compensation have either withdrawn the writ petitions or not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The present writ petitions are filed on the basis of violation of Articles 47, 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also the case of the petitioners that enquiry conducted under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is a farce and the remarks of the requisitioning body on the objections of the land owners were not furnished as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. Some of the petitioners have submitted their objections within the time stipulated in the public notice issued in Form-B and after issuance of Form-A to individuals. 10. The main crux of the objections are that house sites have been approved by the authorities and acquisition of such house sites will defeat the very purpose of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, when alternative suitable dry lands are available and therefore acquiring house sites violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Subjective satisfaction of the authority is vitiated by ulterior motive and shown favouritism. Exclusion of nearly 70 acres sanctioned in the year 1979 in S.Nos.58 and 50 at Oragadam Village and proceedings with the present acquisition amounts to authorities misusing the powers. Notice in Form-A was given by an incompetent officer and therefore it violates the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. No locality publication has been made as per Rule 4 and that there has been mis-description of property. 11. In some of the cases like W.P.No.16922 of 2007, the District Collector, on receipt of such objections from the owners, has issued communications dated 01.03.1997 and 15.03.1997 to the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the objections were forwarded to the requisition body viz., SIPCOT calling for the remarks and the petitioners have not received the remarks. While so, the enquiry notice was served, posting enquiry on 20.03.2007 and 26.03.2007 and on the dates of the said enquiry, hundreds of owners and some along with their counsels have participated in the enquiry in the Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram and there was no enquiry conducted and all the objectors were asked to assemble in the meeting hall and there was a speech given by the District Collector quoting the price of the land and those who were willing were directed to fill up the cyclostyle form and signature https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the owners have been obtained. Immediately, the counsels have submitted memo stating that enquiry has not been conducted. Therefore, some of the owners have also requested the State Government to change the District Collector on the score that the acquisition proceedings has been done with bias. There was a news item in 'Thinathanthi' newspaper on 21.04.2007, stating that the respondents are willing to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs per ground in respect of the land situated near the road and Rs.2 lakhs fixed for other approved house sites, directing the owners to establish their ownership on or before 07.05.2007, stating that on execution of Sale Deed, amount will be paid and that was in the form of private negotiations. Therefore, according to the petitioners, issuance of such notice amounts to pre-determining the issue. That apart, notice issued under Section 3(2) is without jurisdiction contravening the requirements of law. 12. The acquisition proceedings are challenged on various grounds including that as per the Central Act viz., Special Economic Zones Act 2005 (Central Act 28/2005) and the Tamil Nadu Act 18/2005, the acquisition relating to those lands are not in conformity with the said Acts and therefore the acquisition is bad. The administrative sanction issued under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 03.11.2006, is opposed to the constitutional scheme provided for maintenance of eco-environmental system and suffers from vires of non-application of mind, want of good faith, arbitrary exercise of power etc., The Form-A notice issued under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 read with Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Rules, 2001 is without jurisdiction and the same has been signed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Oragadam Expansion Project, since it requires the District Collector to sign. The notice issued under Section 3(2) is invalid and in violation of Sections 15 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, which contemplates the rule making power of the Government with regard to authentication of orders and other instructions of the District Collector and the manner of issuance of public notice. 13. The SIPCOT, being a requisitioning body cannot act as an acquiring authority. When there is no enquiry pursuant to notice under Section 3(2) of the Act and when there was no notification in terms of Section 2(c), the conduct of the respondents in acquiring the land which is used for small industrial purpose to be given to Multi National Companies and thereby permitting the private companies to occupy, is not permissible in law. 14. The subjective satisfaction has not been properly used. That the respondents have not acquired 70 acres of land which was already sanctioned in 1997 and depriving the petitioners right to live in the approved house sites violates Article 14 and 21 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution of India. No proper notice has been served to the owners or other subsequent purchasers or original owners. That there is no notification declaring the area as “industrial area” and the enquiry stated to have been conducted is a farce. 15. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu (SIPCOT) and the Special Tahsildar(LA), SIPCOT Oragadam Industrial Expansion Scheme have filed counter affidavit. 16. It is the case of the Special Tahsildar (LA) that the Government issued administrative sanction by G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries MID-2 Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire an extent of 360.97.5 hectares of patta lands and 34.90.0 hectares of Government poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages at Sriperumbudur under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 for expansion of the Oragadam Industrial Complex by SIPCOT. It was pursuant to the said administrative sanction order of the Government, land acquisition proceedings under the Tami Nadu Act 10/1999 have been initiated. In that respect all lands in S.No.190/5 measuring an extent of 10,050 sqmt, stands in the name of Thiru. Jayaraman to whom notice was served under Section 3(2) and there was no response and in respect of lands covered under the said Survey numbers, there was no owners response, in spite of public notice. It is also stated that in spite of the fact that revenue accounts standing in the name of the original owner, the Land Acquisition Authority have collected particulars from the Sub-Registrar's Office and on subsequent verification included the names of subsequent purchasers in the notification under Section 3 (1) and public notice was published on 02.02.2007 as per Section 3 (2) of the Act. When objections were received from the owners, they were sent to the requisitioning body namely the SIPCOT and their opinion has been obtained and after receiving the said opinion, enquiry was conducted in the District Collector's Office on 20.03.2007 and 26.03.2007. By G.O.Ms.No.102, Industries (SIPCOT- LA) Department, dated 16.04.2007, the Government has approved fixing of land value for various categories of lands fixing the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per ground etc., and specific notices were sent to the owners asking for their willingness and no one of the owners were compelled to accept the amount. After considering the objections received from the land owners and also the remarks offered by SIPCOT, Special Tahsildar (LA) has sent the proposal under Section 3(1) of the Act to the Government. The Government have approved the proposal and issued Government Order by way of notification under Section 3(1) published in Government Gazette on 04.07.2007. The fixation of price by negotiation was passed by the State Level Committee and option was given to the owners and therefore there was no pre-determined intention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. It is the case of the Special Thasildar (LA) that notification under Section 3(1) was issued strictly as per Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 and the administrative sanction issued under the Government order is not in violation of the Constitutional provisions and that the entire proceedings were made in accordance with law. It is also stated that about 6000 land owners are involved in the land acquisition proceedings and determining of the market value has nothing to do with the acquisition proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Act. It was only to speed up the acquisition process, the value was fixed under negotiation and in cases where no agreement was reached, proceedings under Section 7 (3) of the said Act will be followed. It is also stated that acquisition is for larger industrial purpose and the writ petitioners are very few persons who have objected to the acquisition while majority of the land owners have accepted the acquisition and also the compensation amount. 18. It is the case of the requisitioning body SIPCOT in the counter affidavit that the present acquisition is for larger extent of 395.87.5 hectares and in respect of the remaining 70 acres based on the acquisition proceedings