Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 123
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
Padmavathi & Another
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary & Others
W.P.(MD)Nos. 9049 & 9050 of 2013 & 4397 & 4398 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 & 1 of 2013 & 2 & 4 of 2014
Decided on : 23-01-2015
For the Petitioner:N.R. Murugesan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate, R5, T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Shivakumar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition of lands for industrial purposes must serve the public interest and that the petitioners must provide evidence of the lands' exclusive agricultural use to challenge the acquisition.
Headnote:
Agricultural Lands - Land Acquisition - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) - Section 3(2), 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition of agricultural lands for the formation of a paper board factory, emphasizing the importance of public need and the lack of evidence supporting the lands' agricultural nature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to prevent the acquisition of their agricultural lands for the establishment of a paper board factory, alleging that the acquisition would affect their livelihood. The respondents contended that the acquisition was for public development and had followed all statutory procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' lands were not exclusively agricultural and that the acquisition was in the public interest. It emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the lands' agricultural nature and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition of the petitioners' lands for industrial purposes was lawful and in the public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of the lands' exclusive agricultural use and emphasized the public need for the industrial development in the area.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, ruling in favor of the respondents and emphasizing the public interest in the industrial development.
1. In view of the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, all the Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. In all the Writ Petitions the petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to install or take over their agricultural cultivable lands under S.F.Nos.298/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 299/1,2,3-A,3-B, 300/1, 2,3,4,5 in Toto acre 17.67 cents and under S.F.Nos.299/4,5 acre 4 for the formation of multi layer double coated paper board factory through the Tamil Nadu news print and papers limited (TNPL) under the scheme of Rule 110 of Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly Rule which are existing in Manaparai Taluk, Mondipatti Revenue Village on the basis of the resolution dated 07.05.2013, without giving opportunity or notification to the agriculturists.
3. According to the petitioners, during the second week of April, 2013, the fourth respondent along with his subordinates visited the village of Mondipatti, Poduvarpatti, Poongudipatti, Kottapatti which are coming under Mondipatti Revenue Village, Manapparai Taluk and noted all the agricultural and cultivable lands for taking survey. When they enquired the officials about the reasons for the survey, they have stated that they are taking the lands for the Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) for starting a paper board factory in the name and style of multi layer double coated paper board manufacturing unit at Mondipatti village. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend that when the lands are cultivable lands and it is sought to be acquired, their very livelihood would be affected. Further more, they would contend that this is a totally backward area and under the Green Revolution Project, they have converted the dry lands into agricultural lands. They would mainly contend that earlier, one Balasubramanian made a representation to the District Collector, Trichirappalli, not to take the agricultural lands but inspite of the same, the respondents have already given some notifications regarding taking over the lands. From the news papers, the petitioners came to know that on 24.05.2013 the Chief Minister is going to lay a foundation for the paper board factory. Therefore, they made a representation to the District President seeking appointment but they have denied and in the peace committee meeting also they have declared that they will not take the agricultural lands. But, now they are attempting to take the lands. Therefore, aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for the relief of not to install or taking over the agricultural cultivable lands for the formation of multi layer double coated paper board factory.
4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter and also filed vacate stay petition. In the counter filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.4397 and 4398 of 2014, it is very clearly stated that the acquisition process has been done as per the statutory provisions after giving proper notifications and the lands have been handed over to the fifth respondent on 26.02.2014 and now they are the absolute owner and in possession of the lands in dispute. The lands were acquired for the starting of a state-of-the-art-technology based Multi Layer Double Coated Paper Board industry at Mondipatti, K.Periyapatti (North) and Chettichatram Villages in Manapparai Taluk of Trichy District. The district is a backward area and by virtue of starting the industry, the entire district will be developed. According to them, the Government published a notice under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the land owners and any another persons, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land which is proposed to be acquired, to show cause why the land should not be acquired. The notice under Section 3(2) of Act has been issued on 23.10.2013 and
