The judgment emphasizes the interpretation of legislative provisions, the power of judicial review, and the authority of the District Collector to conduct hearings, providing clarity on the requisitioning body's remarks.

JUDGMENT

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

1. The brief facts of the case is that the District Collector, Kancheepuram had issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 for acquisition of lands at 121 Vadagal 'B' Village on 23.04.2010. In the said notice, the District Collector had called upon the persons interested in the lands in the schedule to the Notification to submit their objections within a period of 30 days. He had also fixed an enquiry at his Office on 24.05.2010. Pursuant to the enquiry, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.153 Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 29.11.2011 had issued the declaration under Section 3(1) Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. A notice of possession in form “E” was also issued on 15.02.2012. Challenging the said proceedings, the Writ Petition No.8806 of 2012 was filed by the first respondent on the ground that there has been a violation of Section 2(3) & (3) read with Rule 6 (b) & (c) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 which confers a valuable right of knowing the cause on which the objections of the landowner is being overruled.

2. The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment made in W.P.Nos.2055 and 2056 of 2010 dated 10.07.2012 has allowed the said Writ Petitions.

3. Being aggrieved, the Government had filed the present Writ Appeal.

4. It is pertinent to note that the issue in W.P.Nos.2055 and 2056 of 2010 is based on the premise that the District Collector did not have the Authority to conduct a hearing pursuant to the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. It is also further noted that the learned Judge has further directed the Government to consider the objections if any submitted in writing and hear the objections of the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

5. It is brought to our notice that in an intra-court appeal against W.P.No.2056 of 2010 in W.A.No.1710 of 2017, a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 01.02.2018 has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench after considering Section 23A of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the Government Notification dated 02.09.2005, whereby the Government had delegated its functions and under the said Act to be exercised by the District Collectors of the district concern, has held as follows:-

17. Section 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act permits delegation of powers by the Government. The Collector, as a delegatee is empowered to conduct hearing of objections in the place of the Government. The fact that Rule 6 contains a provision for hearing of objections by the Government would not nullify Section 23-A of the Act giving the Government the power of delegation. Rule 6 is subject to Section 23-A of the Act. Wherever the name Government is shown in Rule 6, it has to be read as District Collector, in view of Section 23-A of the Act and the notification in G.O.Ms.No.513 Revenue dated 2 September 2005. We therefore reject the contention taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent on the strength of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules.

18. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court is not to legislate. The Court can only interpret the law and cannot enter the field of legislation. The Court must interpret the provision enacted by the legislature in a particular manner, taking into account the intention of the legislature. It is not for the Court to say that the Government was not correct in delegating certain power to the executive without there being any challenge to the provision permitting such delegation.

19. We make the position clear that the District Collectors are empowered to conduct enquiry after issuing Notification under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the In