1. Both writ petitions came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

2. The petitioners in both writ petitions are the son and wife of one Sambandam. In these two writ petitions, the contentions raised are identical, i.e., two petitioners want to challenge the communication, dated 02.11.2010 issued by the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT -Orgadam and Irungattukottai Expansion Schemes and seek to quash the same.

3. When the matter came up for final hearing on 31.01.2012, the counsel appearing for the SIPCOT stated that the matter cannot be heard without the SIPCOT being made as a party as they are the requesitioning body and that they are the necessary and proper party and sought for time to get themselves impleaded. However, this court felt that it is unnecessary to further waste the time and hence suo motu impleaded the SIPCOT as a necessary party. Therefore, the SIPCOT represented by the Chairman and Managing Director was made as party third respondent and the cause title stands appropriately modified. The argument of Ms.Namadha Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for SIPCOT was also heard.

4. By t