The court emphasized that the petitioners cannot be penalized for the administrative delay in issue of alienation orders and that the impugned demand was unreasonable and against the progressive object behind promoting the industrial estate for women entrepreneurs.

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4.

2. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions are identical and therefore, both the writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. The prayer sought for in both these writ petitions is to quash the order passed by the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 172 Revenue [(Nimu 7(i)] Department dated 11.06.2013 and the consequential proceedings issued by the fourth respondent dated 24.03.2014 and to direct the respondents to fix the cost of the industrial plots in the Women Industrial Park at Karuppur Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District afresh only by taking the value of the land as obtained during the year already adopted by the respondents 2 to 4 to fix the cost of plots in the second respondent proceedings in RC No. 5749 dated 30.03.2005.

4. Both the petitioners were allotted an industrial estate property by SIDCO exclusively reserved for Women Entrepreneurs. There is no dispute with regard to the allotment and the fact that the petitioners have paid the money and such other matters. Therefore, those issues being not disputed, they are not dealt with elaborately.

5. The short issue, which falls for consideration in these writ petitions, is as to whether the respondent-SIDCO could call upon the petitioners to pay the revised cost being the sum of Rs. 2,86,816/- in W.P. No. 29883 of 2014 and Rs. 17,18,119/- for Plot No. 155 and Rs. 6,11,565/- for Plot No. 156 in W.P. No. 29997 of 2014 respectively.

6. In the demand dated 24.03.2014, issued by the SIDCO it is stated that the District Collector, Salem issued a proceedings dated 10.09.2013 calling upon the SIDCO to pay a sum of Rs. 9,23,05,075/- being the land cost and the same has been paid by SIDCO vide Demand Draft No. 188156 dated 10.10.2013 and therefore, the cost of the plot allotted to the petitioners is revised and the petitioners are granted two months' time to pay the differential amount as mentioned in the impugned demand and failing which, it is further stated that the petitioners are liable to pay interest at 13% for the belated period.

7. The petitioners have challenged the said impugned demand dated 24.03.2014 issued by the SIDCO as well as that portion of the Government Order in and by which the Government has ordered that the cost of the land has to be fixed based on the current market value. It is to be noted that the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 172 dated 11.06.2013 does not concern the petitioners. But, it is the Government Order for the purpose of fixing the land cost payable by SIDCO to Government for the purpose of promoting the women entrepreneurs industrial estate. During the pendency of these writ petitions, further notices have been issued to the petitioners dated 13.01.2015 threatening the petitioners that if the differential cost as per the impugned demand dated 24.03.2014 is not paid within 15 days from the date of the said letter, the allotment of plot will be cancelled without any further notice.

8. It is true that in the order of allotment dated 30.03.2005 issued to the petitioners, it is stated that only the tentative cost of the land is fixed and there is also a condition empowering SIDCO to revise the cost so fixed, subject to the revised land cost to be fixed by the Government. Further, it is stated that if the erstwhile owners of the lands acquired for the above estate happen go to the Civil Court appealing against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Courts pass a decree or decrees in their favour, the additional compensation payable is also recoverable from the allotees. Further the allotment order states that the final price of the developed plot due to the increased cost of development charges and provision of amenities etc., shall be de