Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Mad) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, P. VELMURUGAN, JJ.
K. Sabapathy & Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Rep. by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 2051 & 2052 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2010
Decided On : 08-02-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: T.R. Rajagopal, for M/s. T.R. Rajaraman
For the Respondents: V. Ayyathurai, V. Anandhamurthy, N.R. Chandran, M. Vijayan for M/s. Kings & Patrige

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a fair and transparent land acquisition process under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, emphasizing the government's obligation to provide sufficient opportunity for landowners to raise objections and the need for the government to consider these objections in a reasonable manner.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Industrial Development - Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Act 10 of 1999) - The court discussed the acquisition of land for industrial purposes under the Act and emphasized the need for a fair and transparent acquisition process. The court highlighted the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to landowners to raise objections and the government's obligation to consider these objections in a reasonable manner.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants owned land that a public limited company sought to acquire for industrial purposes. The government initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The appellants raised objections and sought documents, but the acquisition proceeded. The appellants filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by the single judge. The appellants appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the government had given sufficient opportunity to the appellants to raise objections and had followed the land acquisition proceedings as per the Act. The court held that the acquisition was for industrial purposes and emphasized that the court's role was to ensure a fair decision-making process, not to determine the necessity of the land for industrial purposes.
Issues: The main issues were the fairness of the land acquisition process, the government's consideration of objections raised by the landowners, and the necessity of the land for industrial purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Act does not require an elaborate inquiry but mandates providing an opportunity for landowners to raise objections, which the government must consider in a reasonable manner. The court held that the government had given sufficient opportunity to the appellants and followed the acquisition process as per the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeals, finding that the government had not violated the statutory provisions in the land acquisition process and had considered the objections raised by the landowners in a reasonable manner.

JUDGMENT :

P. Velmurugan, J.

1. Both the writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 31.08.2010 in W.P.Nos.2616 & 2617 of 2009 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

2.(a). The case of the appellants before the writ court is that the third respondent is a public limited company (herein after referred to as “the Company”), incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. By letter dated 21.11.2007, the company requested the Government, for acquisition of 16.64 acres of land owned by the appellants as they were not willing to sell the land for various reasons. It was for setting up a new factory, with an investment of approximately Rs.900 Crores. The factory would provide employment opportunity and it would be a huge boost to the industrialisation in Tamilnadu.

(b) Before approaching the Government, the Company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Green House Promoters (Pvt.) Limited (herein after referred to as “the Promoters”) to negotiate for purchase of an extent of 290 acres from the land owners who had agreed to sell their land. The Promoters had negotiated with majority of the land owners, who had agreed to sell their land. However, they were unable to procure the land in Naramangalam Village with an extent of 16.64 acres for various reasons.

(c) The Government, in response to the request made by the third respondent had identified the area in Naramangalam Village of Kunnathur Taluk, Perambalur District, for expansion of the Company's Project. Considering the request made by the third respondent and the overall development of the backward district, the Government had accorded Administrative Sanction vide G.O.(Ms) No.85 Industries (MID 1) Department dated 31.03.2008, for the acquisition of an extent of 16.64 acres of patta dry land in S.No.155/10 etc., at Naramangalam Village, Kunnathur Taluk, Perambalur District under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Act 10 of 1999) (herein after referred to as “the Act”).

(d) Based on the above said Government order, the second respondent issued a notice dated 16.04.2008 under Section 3(2) of the Act, calling upon the appellant to submit their representation within 30 days. The appellants sent a joint representation dated 09.05.2008, pointing out that the notice is vague and requested to furnish certain particulars. The second respondent, without considering the representation made by the appellants, forwarded a revised Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2008 under Section 3(2) of the Act, indicating that the acquisition is for MRF Limited and it was for expansion of their Project. The appellants submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 09.06.2008 for providing some more particulars. The second respondent sent a communication to the appellants stating that the lands are required by the third respondent for expansion of its project in Perambalur District with an investment of Rs.900 Crores over a period of three years, providing employment opportunities for approximately 1000 persons directly and 2000 persons indirectly and acquired 117.500 hectares for the said purpose. However, in the said communication, it was stated that, the third respondent was able to persuade the land owners to part with about 109 hectares equivalent to 270 acres of their land and they were unable to procure an extent of 16.64 acres of land in the Village. The second respondent having set out the above particulars failed to furnish the copies of those documents sought for by the appellants to enable them to submit their representation/objections to the Notice under Section 3(ii). The second respondent posted the inquiry on 18.06.2008. The appellant made a request in writing on 16.06.2008 to postpone the inquiry, till the documents sought for by them are furnished. On 17.06.2008, one of the appellants submitted a petition under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Joint Secretary to the Government, Public Information Officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis