JUDGMENT :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16843 of 2017.

1. This Writ Appeal No.2660 of 2021 is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, dated 26.08.2021, thereby dismissing his Writ Petition No.16843 of 2017. By the said Writ Petition, the appellant had prayed to quash the order of the fourth respondent, namely the Special Tahsildhar (LA), SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme, dated 09.08.2016, whereby, the request of the appellant to enhance the compensation in respect of the acquired property comprised in old Survey Nos.49/1A4 and 49/1B and new Survey Nos.190/5, 190/6 bearing D.T.C.P plot Nos.32 to 36 in Navin Nagar layout of Oragadam village measuring an extent of 10,800 Sq.ft, or to exclude the property from acquisition, was rejected.

2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeal are as follows. By a registered sale deed, dated 29.02.1988, the appellant had purchased the above property. While so, for the industrial purpose of expansion of SIPCOT-Oragadam industrial complex, the said lands were sought to be acquired under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act, 10 of 1999) (herein after refer to as ‘the Act 10 of 1999’). Along with the lands of 29 others, by G.O.Ms.No.191, Industries, (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 04.07.2007 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.187, Page No.49, dated 04.07.2007, a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, 10 of 1999 was issued, after issuing a show cause notice under Section 3(2) of the Act, after hearing the land owners, including the appellant. Thus, the lands stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances as per Section 4 of the said Act. By due notice in Form-E, the appellant was required to surrender possession and possession was taken and the land was handed over to SIPCOT. Thereafter, the proceedings for determination of the compensation amount, as per Section 7 of the Act was initiated. A notice, bearing R.C.No.5 of 2008, dated 20.03.2009 under Section 7(5) and 7(7) of the Act was issued. An Award was passed in Award No. 19/07 on 26/11/2011. Thereafter, the award amount has been deposited in Revenue Account with the Government.

3. The SIPCOT had in-turn, subsequently, leased out portion of the land acquired from the appellant along with the other larger extent of the lands to one Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited by a lease agreement, dated 04.09.2012 and the said lessee is in possession of the land without having already built a compound wall for the entire extent of the land leased out to them.

4. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed W.P. No. 32290 of 2007, challenging the acquisition proceedings in R.C.No.3/97. The said Writ Petition along with the other batch of Writ Petitions were taken up together and by a common order, dated 03.06.2008, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions upholding the land acquisition. However, in paragraph No.94 of the said order, after noting that some portions of the acquired lands were either used for religious purposes or for small scale industries purposes, it reserved liberty for such of those petitioners to approach the Government for the purpose of withdrawal of the land acquisition in respect of such pieces of land. Further, the learned Judge also observed that some of the petitioners already carried on some industrial activities which might itself can be referred as industrial purposes under the Act 10 of 1999, it would be open for them to submit a representation to SIPCOT after the completion of the acquisition proceedings and their cases can be considered by the SIPCOT on merits in accordance with law for allotment of industrial plots to them.

5. After the said order was passed, several other writ petitioners whose writ petitions were also dismissed