2011 Supreme(Mad) 2469

2011 WLR 505
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL
J. Doraibabu & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Industries Department & Others
Writ Appeals No.781, 782, 799, 800, 855, 856 and 859 to 863 of 2008; M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.781 of 2008; M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.782 of 2008; M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.799 of P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.800 of 2008; M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.855 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.856 of 2008
Decided On: 29-04-2011

Non-service of individual notices on occupiers is mandatory and its non-issuance vitiates acquisition proceedings. Notice issued in name of dead person is non-est in law.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT, 1997 - NOTICES - SERVICE - INDIVIDUAL NOTICES TO OCCUPIERS - MANDATORY - NON-ISSUANCE - VITIATES ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - NOTICE IN NAME OF DEAD PERSON - NON-EST - UNDUE HASTE IN REJECTING OBJECTIONS - VITIATES PROCEEDINGS - SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION UNDER DIFFERENT ACT - SUPERSEDES EARLIER NOTIFICATION - COLLECTOR TO SIGN FORM 'A' NOTICE - NO RULES FRAMED - NON-SIGNING NOT APPRECIATED - PRIOR DECLARATION OF AREA AS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NOT NECESSARY - PLACES OF WORSHIP AND TINY INDUSTRIES EXEMPTED FROM ACQUISITION.

Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions challenging common order passed by learned single Judge of High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by land owners challenging acquisition of lands by Government under Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

Finding of the Court:

1. Non-service of individual notices on appellants, despite purchase of properties long before initiation of acquisition proceedings and mutation in revenue records, and issuance of notices in name of original owner who died a decade prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, vitiates acquisition proceedings. 2. Notice issued in name of dead person is non-est in law. 3. Lock, stock and barrel rejection of lawful objections raised by appellants by District Collector, in undue haste in sending report to Government, also vitiates acquisition proceedings. 4. Subsequent notification under different Act supersedes earlier notification. 5. Collector to sign Form 'A' notice - no rules framed - non-signing not appreciated. 6. Prior declaration of area as industrial estate not necessary. 7. Places of worship and tiny industries exempted from acquisition.

Issues: 1. Whether non-service of individual notices on appellants vitiates acquisition proceedings? 2. Whether notice issued in name of dead person is non-est in law? 3. Whether lock, stock and barrel rejection of lawful objections raised by appellants by District Collector, in undue haste in sending report to Government, vitiates acquisition proceedings? 4. Whether subsequent notification under different Act supersedes earlier notification? 5. Whether Collector to sign Form 'A' notice - no rules framed - non-signing not appreciated? 6. Whether prior declaration of area as industrial estate necessary? 7. Whether places of worship and tiny industries exempted from acquisition?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Non-issuance of individual notices to present owners, even though they have purchased properties long before initiation of impugned acquisition proceedings and in spite of fact that pattas have also been issued in names of some of these owners and issuance of notice in name of erstwhile owner, who is dead a decade back, cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be called as compliance of scheme of things mandated under Act. 2. Strict compliance of procedure contemplated under Act is must, particularly when procedure contemplated under Act itself being summary one. Non-issuance of notice to present owners, even though they have purchased properties long before initiation of impugned acquisition proceedings and in spite of fact that pattas have also been issued in names of some of these owners and issuance of notice in name of erstwhile owner, who is dead a decade back, cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be called as compliance of scheme of things mandated under Act. 3. Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2001 seeks to ensure free and fair hearing of objections by Government, which is also aim of Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act. Importance of such enquiry has been expressed in clear terms by Honourable Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [(2005) 7 SCC 627]. 4. Earlier notification (which is impugned subject in these appeals) has been superseded and even on this count, no proceedings could be carried on by authorities/respondents. 5. As Collector has been delegated with powers of Government under Act and as no Rules have been framed under Section 25(2)(b) for Collector to delegate his such powers, non-signing of Form 'A' by Collector cannot be appreciated. 6. In view of wordings in Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of Industrial Purposes Act, no prior declaration of declaring area as industrial estate, before acquiring land for industrial purposes is necessary. 7. Since appellant in W.A.No.859 of 2008 is running place of worship, which are excluded categories of acquisition, he is entitled for exemption accordingly.

Final Decision: W.A.Nos.855 and 856 of 2008 dismissed. W.A.Nos.781, 782, 799, 800 and 859 to 863 of 2008 allowed.