IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.4.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeals No.781, 782, 799, 800, 855, 856 and 859 to 863 of 2008; M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.781/2008; M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.782/2008; M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.799/2008; M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.800/2008; M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.855/2008 and M.P.No.1/2008 in W.A.No.856/2008 W.A.Nos.781 & 782/2008: Mr.J.Doraibabu .. Appellant in W.A.No.781/2008 Mr.J.Sridhar .. Appellant in W.A.No.782/2008 Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.M/s.SIPCOT, rep.by its Managing Director, 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai-600008. 3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Kancheepuram. 4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT-Oragadam Extension Scheme, Sriperumbudur. .. Respondents in both the W.As. W.A.No.799/2008: R.Udhayakumar ... Appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The District Collector, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. 3.The Special Tahsildar (LA) SIPCOT, Oragadam Expansion Scheme, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District ... Respondents W.A.No.800/2008: S.William ... Appellant Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretay, Department of Industries, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.M/s.SIPCOT, rep.by its Mwanaging Director, 19-A, Rukmani Laksmipathy Salai, Chennai-600008. 3.The District Collector, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. 4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) SIPCOT, Oragadam Expansion Scheme, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents W.A.Nos.855 & 856/2008: N.Ravishankar .. Appellant in W.A.855/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.M/s.Triway Container Freight Station Pvt.Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, No.14, Jaffar Street, Chennai-600001. 2.Venkatapathy Naidu 3.Govindarajan 4.Krishnamurthy .. Appellants in W.A.856/2008 Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort George, Chennai-600009. ...I REspondent in W.A.855/08 2.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. The Secretary to Government Commercial Tax Department Chennai-9 ...I Respondent in W.A.856/08 3.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme-Phase 4, Sriperumbudur. .. Respondents in both the W.As. W.A.Nos.859 to 863/2008: Pastor K.Aaron Anandhan, Pillarof Fire of Jesus Ministries, Plot No.15, Naveen Nagar, Mersia Street, (Near Orakadam Junction), Orakadam-602105, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. .. Appellant in W.A.859/2008 Mr.T.Parthiban .. Appellant in W.A.860/2008 Mr.G.Ramachandran .. Appellant in W.As.861 & 862/2008 Mrs.M.Santhi .. Appellant in W.A.863/2008 Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.M/s.SIPCOT, rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai-600008. 3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Kancheepuram. 4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT- Oragdam Extension Scheme, Sriperumbudur. .. Respondents in all the W.As. Writ Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 3.6.2008 respectively in W.P.Nos.30255/2007; 30256/2007; 30062/2007; 29709/2007; 29113/2007; 33294/2007; 29090/2007; 29707/2007; 29708/2007; 29710/2007 and 30019/2007. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance to a (i) 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 S.p.No.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 sq.ft) reapecitvely and quash the same (W.P.NO.30255 and 30256/2007) ii 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent (W.P.NO.30062 of 2007) iii. 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)/2007 dt 4th July 2007 in respect of petitioners property situated at Plot No.16 Navin Nagar Second Stage comprised in survey No.49/1B Oragadam village Sriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district measuring about 2100 sq.ft. and quash the same. (W.P.NO.29709 of 2007) iv. writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for the records comprised in Form A notice issued by the 3rd respondent dt 27.1.2007 and 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 9.7.2007 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 (W.P.NO.29113/2007) v. 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. (W.P.No.33294 of 2007) vi.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)/2007 dt 4th July 2007 in respect of petitioners property situate at Plot No.15 Navin Nagar Messla st Orakadam Junction Sriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district602 105 in survey No.49- 1B14 Patta No.1325 of Village No.134 Orakadam village measuring about 1800 sq.ft. and quash the same. (w.P.NO.29090/2007) vii.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)/2007 dt. 04.07.2007 in respect of Petitioners property situated at Plot No.23,8,and 6 Navin Nagar Second Stage Oragadam village Sriperumbudur taluk Kancheepuram district in 1.Survey No.49/1B22, 49/1B32 and 49/1B31 oragadam village, Sriperumbdur Taluk, Kancheeepuram District 602 105 measuring about (i) 1800 sq.ft (ii) 1800 sq.ft. and (iii) 1800 sq.ft. and quash the same (W.P.NMo.29707, 29708 and 27910/20078) and 2.Survey No.49/1B/1B https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Oragadam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District - 602 105 measuring about 23108 sq.ft. (53 cents) and quash the same. (W.P.No.30019/2007) For appellant in W.As.781 & 782/08 : Mr.R.Subramanian For appellants in W.A.Nos.799 & 800/2008 : Mr.S.Subbiah For appellants in W.A.Nos.855 & 856/2008 : Mr.P.Madhavan & Mr.R.Karunakaran For appellants in W.A.Nos.859 to 863/2008 : Mr.s.D.S.Philip For respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Devarajan for SIPCOT Mr.V.Viswanathan, Spl.G.P. for State Government COMMON JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. Since the issue involved in all these matters is one and the same and they all having been filed challenging the very same common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, these matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In G.O.Ms.No.125, Industries (MID1) Department, dated 9.5.1997, administrative sanction was accorded by the Government of Tamil Nadu for acquisition of lands over an extent of 636.88.0 hectares by invoking the urgency clause 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and transfer of an extent of 190.34.0 hectares poramboke lands in favour of Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (TACID), which has been subsequently merged with State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), for setting up of an Industrial Complex at Oragadam and in eight other villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Government, having felt that there is steady increase in the demand for industrial lands in close proximity to Chennai, has decided to take up expansion of the existing Oragadam Industrial Complex and identified 395.87.5 hectares of patta and poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and accorded administrative sanction for acquisition of 91.07.0 hectares of wet land, 269.90.5 hectares of dry land and alienation of 34.90.0 hectares of poramboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam villages, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District by G.O.Ms.No.139, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 3.11.2006. Pursuant thereto, according to the respondents/authorities, notices were sent to the land owners, whose names were found in the revenue records and enquiry on the objections received from the land owners was conducted by the District Collector, Kanchipuram on 20.3.2007 and 26.3.2007 and under a series of Government Orders, all dated 4.7.2007, the Government approved the publication of notices under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Purposes Act). 3. Challenging this action of the Government to acquire the lands, several land owners have filed writ petitions before this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed all the writ petitions, by the common order dated 3.6.2008 by observing that 'there has been substantive compliance of service of notice, conduct of hearing and also taking into consideration the larger industrial development of the State and on the basis of the Object of the Industrial Purposes Act, apart from the fact that out of 6,500 land owners, except 16 writ petitioners (since the writ petitioner in W.P.No.29575 of 2007 (by name N.Rajendran) has accepted the compensation and the said writ petition is dismissed as infructuous) all other persons have either accepted the compensation or surrendered the lands by accepting the acquisition proceedings...'. The learned Judge has also observed that 'however, in respect of cases where specific plea is raised about the occupation of specified portions for religious purposes or small scale industry purpose, it is always open to the said petitioners to make proper representation to the Government either for the purpose of withdrawal of the lands from acquisition proceedings or for any other relief. In that case, it is always open to the Government to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits. It is also made clear that in cases where the petitioners are already carrying on some industrial activities, which may be referred to as 'industrial purpose' under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, it is always open to the said petitioners to make proper representation to SIPCOT after the acquisition proceedings are over, for the purpose of allotment. In such event, it is for the SIPCOT as well as the Government to consider their case in accordance with law and on merits and pass appropriate orders.' 4. Aggrieved against the above said findings of the learned single Judge, eleven of the writ petitioners have preferred these writ appeals. 5. For better assessment of the entire gamut, we feel it appropriate to narrate the facts of each case. W.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2008: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Both these appellants are brothers and according to them, there was a family partition among the legal heirs of their father Mr.Jayaraman, who died on 28.6.1996 and a family partition was effected under a registered partition deed dated 4.12.2003, whereunder the appellant in W.A.No.781 of 2008 (by name J.Duraibabu) became the owner of 75 cents and the appellant in W.A.No.782 of 2008 (by name J.Sridhar) became the owner of 25 cents out of one acre of land in S.No.49/3 of Oragadam village but patta remained in the name of their father and though the appellants are paying the property tax, no notice was issued to them by the authorities, as required under the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act. It is also their case that though they are paying the property tax, water tax, electricity charges and they were also issued with the family cards, thus showing mutation in other revenue records and were also granted proper approval by the concerned authority for the construction of the shopping complex, no notices were issued to them and therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of their lands are null and void. 7. The contentions of these appellants were countered by the third respondent stating that no notice has to be issued to the appellants in view of the fact that the property stands in the name of Mr.Jayaraman and as no mutation of land records was done, the statutory authorities cannot be found fault with for non-issuance of notice to the present owners. W.A.No.799/2008: 8. The case of this appellant is that he is the owner of an extent of 8163 sq.ft. of land in S.No.49/1A3 and 1A5 of Oragadam village, having been purchased by him as per the sale deed dated 18.5.2006, for setting up an industry. After purchase, he has also obtained necessary licenses from the General Manager, District Industries, Kanchipuram. Even though his property was also a subject matter of the acquisition, no notice was issued to him at any point of time. 9. The third respondent in this appeal has filed a counter affidavit stating that the property stood in the name of Mr.Jayaraman and hence notice was issued in the name of the said Jayaraman and subsequently, records were verified in the Sub Registrar's Office and accordingly, the name of the appellant was included in the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Industrial Purposes Act. W.A.No.800/2008: 10. According to this appellant, he along with his wife purchased the immovable property in S.No.49/1B of Oragadam village, measuring about 2100 sq.ft., as per the sale deed dated 31.1.2005, but no notice was issued to him by the Government with respect to the acquisition in question, however, his wife received a notice dated 20.4.2007 from the fourth respondent calling upon her to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inform as to whether she was willing to surrender the property to the Government for the proposed project of SIPCOT and the appellant, as per his reply dated 12.5.2007 informed the fourth respondent that he has no intention of giving the property and he has objection for acquiring the property, but, however, there was no follow up action with notice to him. It is also his contention that no notice was issued to him at any point of time and the first notification was issued without any kind of enquiry and as such, it was against the principles of natural justice. 11. The third respondent contended that the property stood only in the name of Mr.Jayaraman and hence notice was issued only in his name, but since there was no reply, further proceedings were continued, exparte. W.A.Nos.855 and 856/2008: 12. According to the appellant in W.A.No.855 of 2008, who is the Managing Director of the first appellant company in W.A.No.856/2008, he has purchased an extent of 5.04 acres of land in S.No.70/3, 70/7, 70/8, 70/9, 70/10, 70/13B, 70/13C, 70/14, 70/17 and 17/18 under a sale deed dated 11.4.2006 and another extent of 7 acres as per the sale deed dated 22.5.2007. The properties are situated at Oragadam and Vadakkupattu villages in Sriperambadur Taluk in Kancheepuram District. A communication dated 24.4.2007 was sent to him, calling upon him as to whether he is willing for the rate of compensation fixed by the authorities for acquiring his property. By way of the said notice, the third respondent has offered a sum of Rs.14 lakhs per acre. This appellant has submitted a reply on 27.4.2007, wherein it was indicated that the property itself was purchased for the purpose of setting up an industry and as such, there was no question of acquiring the said land, but, nothing was heard thereafter. He ultimately came to know that an order under Section 3(1) of the Industrial Purposes Act was passed on 23.5.2007, which made him to initiate the present writ proceedings. 13. The third respondent has filed a counter in the writ petition wherein they have challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition. According to the third respondent, notice in Form-A was issued under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act on 27.1.2007, however, there was no reply to the said notice and therefore, the statutory authorities proceeded with the process of acquisition and ultimately a notification under Section 3(1) was issued. 14. While W.A.No.855 of 2008 has been filed by the Managing Director of Triway Container Freight Station Private Limited in his individual capacity, W.A.No.856 of 2008 has been filed by the said company, along with others. 15. In W.A.No.856/2008, the case of the appellants is that even though they are purchasers of the properties from the second appellant, no notice was issued to them and the property was acquired from them. This has been stiffly opposed by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, by filing a counter affidavit stating that the second appellant has sold the properties after receipt of the notice and thus the appellants are the subsequent purchasers of the properties. It has also been contended on the part of the respondents in this case that in the earlier proceedings in W.P.No.3111/2007, the original owner/the second appellant has accepted the compensation and has in fact, withdrawn the writ petition and hence, the present writ petition is barred by res judicata. W.As.859 to 863 of 2008: 16. The appellants in all these appeals are the purchasers from the heirs of Jayaraman (father of the appellants in W.A.Nos.781 and 782/2008). The common ground of attack to the land acquisition proceedings is similar to that of the appellants in W.A.Nos.781 and 782/2008 that no individual notices were issued to them at any point of time. It is the case of the appellant in W.A.No.859 of 2008 that after purchase of the property, they have constructed a Church with pastor's residence in the ground floor and prayer hall in the first floor in the property in the year 2006 and regularly conducting prayers and other religious activities therein. 17. The case of the appellant in W.A.No.863 of 2008 is that she has purchased an extent of 53 cents of land in S.No.49/1B/1B of Oragadam village as per the sale deed dated 6.6.2006 and subsequently a patta was also issued in her name as per the proceedings dated 18.9.2006. Thereafter, she had put up a construction with eleven shops. She has put up a small scale industrial unit in a separate asbestos sheet covered shed measuring 500 square feet and according to her, more than 30 employees are employed in the said company, doing embroidery work and is registered as Tiny Industry with the Industries and Commerce Department with Registration No.3303102158 on 20.11.2006 and about 100 persons, either directly or indirectly, are employed in the said premises, which is a shopping complex. Thus, though she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, no notice of acquisition was issued to her and as such, she was kept in darkness about the acquisition proceedings. 18. In all these matters, the common argument advanced on the part of the respondents is that since the property stood in the name of Mr.Jayaraman, notice was issued to him. 19. The above factual aspects, would make it clear that while W.A.Nos.855 and 856 of 2008 form one set of cases, not only with regard to the original ownership but also with regard to the factum of purchase of the property by the present appellants after initiation of the acquisition proceedings, all other matters in W.A.Nos.781,782,799,800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 stand on similar footing, in the sense, the original owner is one and the same i.e. Jayaraman, in whose name alone notices are said to have been sent by the respondents and not in the name of the present owners, the appellants in all these matters. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and discussion, we shall now proceed to discuss the matters as two sets, in the manner explained above. Discussion for W.A.No.855/2008: 21. According to the appellant in this case, he has purchased 5.04 acres of land as per the sale deed dated 11.4.2006 and a further extent of 7 acres as per the sale deed dated 22.5.2007. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that this appellant was issued with a notice in Form 'A' under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act on 22.1.2007, granting him thirty days time to submit his objections. Though this appellant has submitted in his affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that he has submitted his objection on 15.2.2007, there are no documents produced by him to prove this aspect and in fact, even in the representation submitted by him on 27.4.2007, there was no reference about the alleged objection given by him on 15.2.2007. When, thus, the appellant has failed to submit his objections within the prescribed thirty days time permitted by law, it is not open to him to turn around and challenge the proceedings initiated by the respondents. It is also seen that an enquiry was conducted on 20.3.2007 and 26.3.2007 by the authorities, but this appellant is said to have submitted his representation well thereafter, on 27.4.2007. Only in this factual backdrop, the learned single Judge has rejected the claim of this appellant, wherein we are unable to find any illegality so to cause our interference, since being a well considered conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Even though this appellant tried to insist on us that the lands are wet lands and thus are exempted category, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision arrived at by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this writ appeal No.855 of 2008 must fail. Discussion for W.A.No.856/2008: 22. With regard to this writ appeal, the first appellant M/s.Triway Container Freight Station, has purchased the property from the original owner, the second appellant Mr.Venkatapathy Naidu, by way of a sale deed dated 7.5.2007. It is to be pointed out that the notice under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act was issued in these cases on 20.2.2007. Therefore, it goes without saying that the first appellant herein has purchased the property after initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. 23. It is also seen from the materials placed on record that the second appellant in this case viz. Venkatapathy Naidu, being the original owner, has earlier filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.3111 of 2007, challenging the very same acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed as withdrawn as he has accepted the compensation and thereafter, the present writ proceedings in W.P.No.33294 of 2007 were initiated, after selling the property to the first appellant. It is also seen that while in the present writ proceedings seven https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ survey numbers have been given viz. 69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6, 71/8A1, 70/1 and 153/7A, in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.3111 of 2007, the original owner has included five survey numbers, except S.Nos.153 and 70/1. As the original owner himself has accepted for the compensation and withdrawn the earlier writ proceedings in W.P.No.3111 of 2007, he is restrained under the principles of res judicata to once again file the present writ proceedings for the very same survey numbers in 69/2B, 69/3, 69/4, 69/6 and 71/8A1. Even with respect to the other two survey numbers, which are included in the present writ proceedings in S.Nos.153 and 70/1, Section 3(2) notices have been issued to the second appellant/Mr.Venkatapathy Naidu being the original owner on 20.2.2007 and well thereafter, he has sold the property to the first appellant company on 7.5.2007. Therefore, no remedy can be made available to these appellants as they have not approached the Court with clean hands. This aspect has been dealt with in a proper manner by the learned single Judge, and therefore, the same does not call for our interference. Even though this appellant tried to insist on us that the lands are wet lands and thus are exempted category, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered decision arrived at by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal is liable only to be dismissed. Discussion for W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 : 24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.781 and 782 of 2008 would argue that when the first notification, to acquire the lands, was issued under the Industrial Purposes Act (which is the subject matter in these appeals), another notification was also issued for the same properties under the notification dated 17.12.2009, published in the Tamil Newspapers 'Thina Thanthi' on 6.1.2010, by the Kanchipuram District Collector, on behalf of the Highways Department. Therefore, it has been argued on behalf of these appellants that the earlier notification issued under the Industrial Purposes Act has, thus, been superseded by the subsequent notification and hence,