W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.09.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 and W.M.P.Nos.30127 of 2001, 7150 of 2002 W.P.No.12657 of 2001: P.Elavarasan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udaiyarpalayam, Perambalur District. 3.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur. 4.The Tahsildar, Sendurai Taluk, Perambalur. 1/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 5.The Madras Cements Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Alathiyur, Ariyalur District. ... Respondents (R5 impleaded vide order dated 29.01.2011 made in W.M.P.No.35742 of 2019 in W.P.No.12657 of 2001 by SSSRJ) W.P.No.20422 of 2001: Thangarasu Konar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Land Commissioner, Land Acquisition, Chepauk, Madras - 5. 2.The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Ariyalur. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayar Palayam, Ariyalur. 4.The Madras Cements Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Alathiyur, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District. ... Respondents W.P.No.5097 of 2002: Senthamilselvi ... Petitioner Vs 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government Department of Industries, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 3.The District Collector, Ariyalur District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District. 5.The Madras Cements Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Alathiyur, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District. ... Respondents PRAYER in W.P.No.12657 of 2001:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 30.10.2000 published in Tamil Murasu dated 09.11.2000 and consequential 5(A) enquiry notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.A3/644/98 dated 07.12.2000 and quash the same. 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 PRAYER in W.P.No.20422 of 2001:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in Section 4(1) Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 30.10.2000 and the consequential declaration in No.H3/22281/2001 under Section 6 dated nil.06.2001 issued under the orders of the first respondent and quash the same. PRAYER in W.P.No.5097 of 2002:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.378 (Industries Department) dated 30.10.2000 on the file of the first respondent and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act in H3/22281/2001 G.O.Ms.(Industries Department) MI - II dated Nil on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu in W.P.12657 of 2001 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesulu for M/s.Usha Raman in W.P.20422 of 2001 For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja in W.P.5097 of 2002 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Government Advocate in W.P.12657 of 2001 For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, 1 to 3 Government Advocate in W.P.20422 of 2001 For Respondent 4 : Mr.Rahul Balaji in W.P.20422 of 2001 For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, 1 to 4 Government Advocate in W.P.5097 of 2002 For Respondent 5 : Mr.Rahul Balaji in W.P.5097 of 2002 ********* C O M M O N O R D E R The W.P.No.12657 of 2001 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 30.10.2000 published in Tamil Murasu dated 09.11.2000 and consequential 5(A) enquiry notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.A3/644/98 dated 07.12.2000 and quash the same. 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 2. The W.P.No.20422 of 2001 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in Section 4(1) Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 30.10.2000 and the consequential declaration in No.H3/22281/2001 under Section 6 dated nil.06.2001 issued under the orders of the first respondent and quash the same. 3. The W.P.No.5097 of 2002 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.378 (Industries Department) dated 30.10.2000 on the file of the first respondent and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act in H3/22281/2001 G.O.Ms.(Industries Department) MI - II dated Nil on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. 4. The petitioners owned land as follows: i) The petitioner in W.P.No.12657 of 2001 is the owner of the Agriculture Lands comprised in Survey No.403/12C measuring an extent of 11 cents (Punja) and in Survey No.404/7A an extent of 89 cents (Nanja) for 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 which the petitioner have assigned with the patta in passbook No.193, 402 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Sendurai. ii) The petitioner in W.P.No.20422 of 2001 is the owner of the land comprised in R.S.No.389B/10B to an extent of 0.36.5 Hectares in No.3 Thalavai Village, Sendurai Taluk, Perambalur District. The petitioner living with his two sons in the house constructed in the said land. iii) The petitioner in W.P.No.5097 of 2002 is the absolute owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.402/5, 402/6, 402/7A and 403/11-A, measuring 0.14.0, 0.30.5, 0.30.5 and 0.03.0 hectors respectively in Dalavai Village of Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the lands in her own absolute right. 5. These lands were sought to be acquired by the Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act") approved in G.O.Ms.No.378 dated 30.10.2000 for the purpose of development of the Cement Factory for the erection of dwelling houses near 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 the factory site for the workmen employed by the company, for the formation of additional Lorry Parking yard, for extending the existing road in the Employees Housing Colony up to main road. 6. The 4th respondent submitted proposals to the third respondent for approval and publication in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in respect of the classified land under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 30.10.2000 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, supplement issue No.44A Part II Section 2 dated 15.11.2000 substance of the 4(1) Notification was published in the locality on 02.12.2000. 7. Thereafter, the inquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Act on 18.01.2001. The petitioners appeared for inquiry and submitted their objections to the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, the draft declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act was also approved and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 18.07.2001 and 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 also published in the Tamil Dailies on 05.06.2001 and 06.07.2001. Substance of the draft declaration was also published in the locality on 31.07.2001. 8. Thereafter, the draft direction under Section 7 of the Act was also approved by the third respondent on 01.09.2001, thereafter the Award inquiry was conducted on 30.10.2001. The Award inquiry notice was duly served to the petitioners on 03.10.2001 and even then they did not appear for Award inquiry. Thereafter, the award was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 21.01.2002 and the same was intimated as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act and to receive the compensation amount, failing which the compensation amount would be kept in the Revenue Deposit. 9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many grounds, before recommending for issuance of 4(1) Notification the Revenue Divisional Officer was conducted inquiry as contemplated under the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. According to the 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 petitioners, no inquiry was conducted from the land owners before Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is relevant to extract the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 Rule 4 hereunder: "4. (1) Whenever a company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely :— (i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of the acquisition; (ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the person interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed; (iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose; (iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive; (v) that the company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously; and (vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land. (2) The Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity, to make any 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 representation in this behalf, hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in sub-rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall :— (i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land, consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land; (ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the company; and (iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined), to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. Explanation.— For the purpose of this rule “good agricultural land” means any land which, considering the level of agricultural production and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land. (3) As soon as may be after holding the enquiry under sub-rule (2), the Collector shall submit a report to the appropriate Government and a copy 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 of the same be forwarded by that Government to the Committee. (4) No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless— (i) the appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any, submitted under section 5A of the Act; and (ii) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company." 10. Accordingly, the Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity to make any representation in this behalf, hold an inquiry into the matters referred under Sub-Rule (1) and while holding such inquiry. Accordingly, no declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act. Unless consulted with committee and the report submitted under this rule. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment reported in 1993(4) SCC 255 Shyam Nandan Prasad and others -vs- State of Bihar and others held as follows: 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 "15. But that is not the be-all and end-all for the company. In order to approach the Government with a request for acquisition the company has to satisfy the provisions of the Rules also. Rule 4 enjoins as under: 4. Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings:-(1) Whenever a Company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely- (i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition; (ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiations with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed; (iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose; (iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive; 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 (v) that the company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously; and (vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of the land. (2) The Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity to make any representation in this behalf, hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in Sub-rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall- (i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural and consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land; (ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the Company; and (iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 compensation so determined), to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. Explanation-For the purpose of this rule "good agricultural land" means any land which, considering the level of agricultural production and the top pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land. (3) As soon as may be after holding the enquiry Sub-rule(2) the Collector shall submit a report to the appropriate Government and a copy of the same shall be forwarded by the Government to the Committee. (4) No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act unless- (i) the appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any, submitted under Section 5A of the Act; and (ii) the agreement under Section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company. 16. Under Rule 3, a Land Acquisition Committee is constituted for the purpose of advising the 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 appropriate Government in relation to acquisition of land under Part VII of the Act, which is required to tender its advice within one month from the date of which it is constituted though the time can be extended by two months. Here again the Collector is required to hold an enquiry in a quasi-judicial sense and would give not only to the company a reasonable opportunity to make good its representations in that behalf but would also, to fulfill the needs of rules of natural justice, give sufficient opportunity to the land owners to refute the case of the company at least in so far as the matter like negotiation of price is concerned, as also on other relevant matters. That Rule 4 is mandatory and essential to be complied with has been ruled by this Court in various decisions. Reference may be made to some of them being: State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai and Ors. , State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Ambalal Haiderbhai and Ors. , and General Govt. Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Sh. Wahab Uddin and Ors." 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Collector is required before an inquiry in a quasi-judicial sense and would give not only to the company a reasonable opportunity to make good its representations in that behalf but would also, to fulfill the needs of rules of natural justice, give sufficient opportunity to the land owners to refute the case of the company at least in so far as the matter like negotiation of price is concerned, as also on other relevant matters. 13. In this regard this Court called for the original files from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The files brought before this Court by Mr.C.Annadurai, The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sendurai Taluk Office. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is extracted below: @kjuh!; rpbkz;l; epWtdj;jhh; ifafk; bra;Jbfh Lf;ff; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fs; nkw;go rpbkz;l; Miyapy; gzpg[hpa[k; bjhHpyhsh;fs; Foap U g ; g [ g ; gFjpia tp!;jhpf;ft[k; rhiyfs; mikf;ft[k; rpbkz;l; Miyapy; cw;gj;jp bra;ag;g Lk; rpbkz;l; K:l;ilfis bghJ kf;fSf;F g; gad;g Lk; tifapy; Vb$z;Lfs; K:ykhf btsp khepy';fspYk; tpw;gid bra;tjw; F trjpahf 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 Kf;fpa efu';fSf;F uapy;nt ntfd;fspy; Vw;wp mDg;g [tjw; F VJthf ,izg;g[r;rhiy mikf;ft[k; njitg;gLfpwJ vd bjhptpf;fpwhh;fs;/ mth;fsJ nfhhpf;if bjhHpw ;rhiyfSf;fhd epybkLg;g [ rl;lk; gphpt[ 40(1)y; fhqk; epge;jidfis jpUg;jpg L j;JfpwJ/ nfhhpf;iffs; epWtdj;jhh; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fis ifafg;g Lj;j eltof;if vLg;gjw; F Kd;g[. fk;bgdp tpjp 4d; fPH; Fwpg;gplg;gl; L s;s tpgu';fs; jpUg;jpahf cs;sdth vd;gJ Fwpj;J nfhhpf;if epWtdj;jhh; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;ldh;/ nfhhpf;if epWtdj;jhhpd; bghJ nkyhsh; fPH;f;fz;lthW thf;F K :yk; bfhLj;Js;shh;/ 1) ifafg;g Lj;jf; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fs; Kd;gj;jpapy; Fwpg;gplg;gl; L s ;s fhhpa';fSf; Fj; njitahd kw;Wk; jFjpahd epy';fs; vdj; njh;e;bjLf;fg;gl; L s;sJ/ 2) ifafg;g Lj;j ntz;oa epy';fis neuo ngr;Rthh;j;ij K:yk; jw;fhy re;ij tpiyf;F th';f vLf;fg;gl;l Kaw;rp gydspf;ftpy;iy/ 3) ifafg;g Lj;jf; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fs; fk;bgdpahhpd; njitia tpl TLjyhf ,y;iy/ 4) ifafg;g Lj;jpf; bfhLf; Fk; gl;rj;jpy; ,e;j epy';fis cldoahf nkny Fwpg;gpl;l fhhpa';fSf; F gad;g Lj;jpf;bfhs;s jahh; epiyapy; cs;sdh;/ 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 5) ifafg;g Lj;jf; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fs; ePz;lfhykhf jhprhf cs;sd vd;Wk; ghrd Mjhuk; ,y;yhj rhFgof; F yhaf;fpy;yhj epy';fs; vd;Wk; ntshz;Jiwapdh; rhd;W mspj;Js;sdh;/ Mdhy;. g[{!;jpjpapy; g[y vz;/ 409- 4?y; cs;s bkhj;j gug;ghd 0/30/5 b\f;nlhpy; bey; rhFgo bra;ag;gl; L mWtil jhprhf cs;sJ/ jstha; (bjw;F) fpuhkj;jpy; ifafk; bra;J bfhLf;ff; nfhhpa[s;s epy';fs; kjuh!; rpbkz;l; epWtdj;jhhpd; rpbkz;l; Miyia xl;o mike;Js;sJ/ ifaf epy';fisr; Rw;wpYk; mth;fsJ epy';fs; cs;sd/ kjuh!; rpbkz;l; epWtdj;jhh; nfl;g[ kD epy tiuglk; kw;Wk; epy tpgu ml;ltiz Mfpatw;iw mDg;gp a[s;shh;fs;/ ml;ltizapy; fz;Ls;s epy';fSf;F ,j;Jld; mDg;gpa[s;s gphpt[ 4(1)d; fPHhd tiut[ tpsk;guj;jpid xg;g[jy; mspj;J jkpH;eh L murpjH ; kw;Wk; jkpH; ehnsLfspy; gpuRuk; bra;a muRf; F ghpe;Jiu bra;a[kh W gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/@ 14. It reveals that the Manager of the Madras Cements Limited was examined and his statement was recorded. However, no notice was given to the land owners namely the petitioners and no inquiry was conducted among the land owners. Therefore, it is clear violations of principles of 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 natural justice. 15. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2009(3) CTC 545 Vijaya and 14 others -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9 and another held as follows: "15. The respondents have not come forward to show to the satisfaction of the Court that the lands under acquisition in respect of the petitioners will really hamper the entire scheme if the lands of the petitioners are excluded. Further it is an admitted case that the petitioners have produced copies of the sale deeds in having purchased the lands in question before the enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and they had also participated in the said enquiry and objected to the acquisition. These objections have not received due consideration. In the present case the acquisition is for a public purpose of providing an housing scheme and not for any other purpose. The fact that the 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 petitioners had obtained an interim stay for the last ten years and are also living in the said land all these years will show that the neighbourhood scheme put up by the second respondent can exist even without these lands in question." 16. In the case on hand, the acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 2000 and the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2002 and obtained stay. Even till today the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the respective subject land. The Acquisition is for a public purpose of providing houses near the factory site for the workmen employed by the company, for the formation of additional Lorry Parking yard, for extending the existing road, in the Employees Housing Colony up to main road etc., and not for any other purpose. The factory remains that the petitioner by obtained interim order and for the past 19 years the writ petition is pending. 17. It will show that the General Manager of the Madras Cements Factory is running the factory land without acquiring the petitioner's land. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground that 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 it was initiated in violations of principles of natural justice. 18. In view of the above discussions, these writ petitions are allowed. The land acquisition proceedings are quashed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.09.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No rna To 1.The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udaiyarpalayam, Perambalur District. 3.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur. 4.The Tahsildar, Sendurai Taluk, 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 Perambalur. 5.The Land Commissioner, Land Acquisition, Chepauk, Madras - 5. 6.The Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Ariyalur. 7.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 8.The District Collector, Ariyalur District. 9.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District. 10.The General Manager, Alathiyur, Ariyalur District. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. 23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 rna W.P.Nos.12657, 20422 of 2001, 5097 of 2002 and W.M.P.Nos.30127 of 2001, 7150 of 2002 09.09.2021 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/