1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WP(MD)No.291 of 2011 And MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 T.Ramaiah Nadar :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer, (District Revenue Officer) Tuticorin. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents proceedings in Na.Ka/E2. 96231/2007 dated 29.09.2010 and quash the same. For petitioner :Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondents:Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No. 719, 727, 728 and 730 measuring to an extent of 6.11.5 hectares in Udangudi Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District and his son has established a Fibre and Coir Manufacturing Small Scale Industry under the name and style of Sureshkumar Fibres in S.No. 728 to an extent of 2.09.0 hectares in the said village. The Department of Industries and Commerce of the State of Tamil Nadu have granted license. 2.According to the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued on 21.07.2010 through news paper by calling for objections of the land owners for the acquisition of land for the public purpose to establish a Thermal Station for generating electricity under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) as per Section 3 (2) of the said Act. According to him, the District Collector has no power to issue the notification, but only the Government has power to issue the notification and that, his objection through his son in so far as S.No. 728, seeking for exemption was not considered and he has already given no objection in respect of other survey numbers viz., S.Nos. 719, 727 and 730. As far as S.No. 728 is concerned, the Government only thought it, it belongs to V.V.Minerals. Whereas his name also finds a place, he sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the entire proceedings for acquiring the entire lands in respect of the project. Hence, the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The Government has come forward with the vacate stay Petition and counter, in which, they have specifically stated that the land in S.No. 728 /1 to an extent of 0.40.5 stands in the name of the petitioner and V.V. Mineral in patta No. 967 and the land in S.No. 728/2 to an extent of 2.09.0 stands registered in the name of Kartheesan, Rajalaxmi, Kasi and others in Patta No. 1405. The publication was made by the Collector under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for the Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act of 1999), on 24.05.2010 inviting objections against the Land Acquisition proposal, from public if any, within 30 days from the date of notice. Therefore, the Writ Petition is pre-mature at this stage as it is only a notice calling for objection. According to the respondent, the patta in respect of S.No. 728 was transferred in the name of the petitioner after the notification in R.T.R.No. 4807 of 2010, dated 14.08.2010 and there is no material evidence to prove that 6.11.5 hectares of land in the above survey numbers is held by the writ petitioner. Before the notification, there is a small Kayiru factory in S.No. 728/2 to an extent of below 10 cents and as it is situated in a middle portion. The notice is proper and in accordance with law. The District Collector is fully empowered to issue notice. As per the village records, the name of the persons as entered have been considered. The objections regarding acquisition of land in S.No. 728/1 and 2 has properly been considered within the jurisdiction and they have stated if the small factory in a small area cannot be excluded as it is a major project. Therefore, they would only contend that the Writ Petition especially which has been filed to stall the entire proceedings in respect of whole area without even mentioning what is the extent is not maintainable. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4.Heard both sides. By consent of both the counsel, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 5.The only grounds raised by the petitioner was that the show cause notice issued by the District Collector, dated 21.07.2010, calling for the objections of the land owners for the acquisition of land for the public purpose under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) as per Section 3 (2) of the said Act, has no jurisdiction and therefore, the entire notification is in- valid. 6.The second objection was that he has made a representation to delete the portion of the property, which admittedly in which he has established Kayiru factory and that has not been considered on the wrong assumption that the Survey number belongs to a third party. Therefore, it has not been considered. Hence, he challenges the notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.As far as the first objection is concerned, the power under Section 3(2) of the said Act, the Government to issue the notice has been delegated to the Collector as per G.O.Ms.No. 513, Revenue Department LA 11 dated 2nd September, 2005 and it has been notified by the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee Extra Ordinary, dated 2nd September 2005. 8.Therefore, the first objection in so far as to the authority of the District Collector issuing the show cause notice does not stand to security at all. Subsequently, the publication itself is made only calling for objection. It is always open for the petitioner to object the same. But in this case, he has made a representation as seen from the typed set of papers and a copy of the same is produced. The date is not mentioned. There is no acknowledgement card produced. In the publication, it is very clearly stated that in S.No. 728/1, the name of the petitioner as well as V.V.Mineral is mentioned. The extent is only 0.40.5 hectares. Whereas in S.No. 728/2 the petitioner's name does not find a place at all. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that in the mean time, the petitioner changed the patta in his name only after the notification. Therefore, there is no need or necessity for giving any notice to a person, whose name does not found place in respect of S.No. 728/2. But S.No. 728/1, he has been considered. 9.Therefore the allegation is that the respondent has not considered the petitioner's objection does not stand to scrutiny. In so far as S.No. 728/1, the name is found, his objection was considered. He now says that small factory is situated in S.No. 728/2, for which, no document is produced to prove before the publication his name finds a place. Whereas his name is not found in that survey number. Therefore, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the orders passed by the authority and the objection was also considered in so far as S.No. 728/1 and Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order. 10.Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To:1.The District Collector,Tuticorin. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer(District Revenue Officer) Tuticorin. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.13745. +1CC to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate. SR.No.13570. Vsg W.P.(MD).No.291 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 RP/04.05.11/3P/5C. 11.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/