IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that land acquisition notifications under the Tamil Nadu Act are valid unless challenged on substantive grounds, and due process must be followed in considering objections.

JUDGMENT

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer in WA.No.385/2014: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03.01.2014 passed in W.P.No.35115 of 2013.

The writ appeals are preferred by the unsuccessful land losers challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated in G.O.Ms.No.67, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 28.03.2013.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued Notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 for establishing industries though SIPCOT. The said notifications are came to be challenged by way of writ proceedings. The Writ Court elaborately considered the issues and the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Three writ petitions are filed challenging the 3(1) notification under the Act.

3. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 03.01.2014 mainly on the ground of latches. Those writ petitioners, who were unsuccessful preferred three writ appeals in W.A.Nos.385 to 387 of 2014. The other writ petitions filed by the land owners are also tagged along with these writ appeals.

4. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the Government required land for developing industrial area and therefore, they have decided to pursue the land acquisition proceedings. On account of interim stay granted in the present writ appeals, the respondents are unable to complete the process of acquisition and pass an award.

5. Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the other respective learned counsels representing the case of the land owners would object by stating that on account of efflux of time the acquisition proceedings are deemed to be lapsed. Therefore, in the event of taking a decision to utilise the lands for public purposes, the Government has to initiate fresh proceedings.

6. We are unable to agree with the said contention in view of the fact that the land acquisition proceedings are stalled on account of writ petitions filed and the interim stay granted by this Court. Litigious pendency cannot be a ground to seek exoneration from the proceedings. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept. More so, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Government required lands for industrial purposes and they have decided to continue the acquisition proceedings.

7. We do not find any infirmity in respect of 3(1) Notification issued during the relevant point of time. The writ petitions itself were dismissed by the learned Single Judge in respect of three land owners only on the ground of latches. However, other writ petitions instituted did not suffer from delay and latches. In any event, the land owners must be provided with an opportunity to submit their respective objections enabling the authorities to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings under the Act.

8. The learned counsels for the land owners would further submit that they have got certain valid grounds for the purpose of invalidating the initiation of acquisition proceedings. All those grounds may be submitted by way of objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn has to consider the grounds and pass appropriate orders by following due process.

9. In respect of the land owners, where the award has already been passed and dispute exist between the private parties regarding title, they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of Law for the purpose of establishing their right to receive compensation. However, those disputed parties are also at liberty to submit their objections to the authorities competent for taking a decision and passing orders.

10. As far as the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.33008 and 33009 of 2019 are concerned, Mr.A.V.Somasundaram, learned Senior Counsel would su