Compensation for land acquisition must be determined based on market value at the time of notification, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and fair procedures.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Sundar, J.

The Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 190473 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022. The Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024 have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11108 and 11109 of 2017, dated 26.10.2021.

2. For the sake of convenience, the 1^st respondent in W.A. Nos 1094 of 2024 and in 1096 of 2024 respectively, who are the appellants in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022, are referred to as the "writ petitioners." Meanwhile, the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024, along with the 3^rd respondent in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022, are referred to as the "respondents."

Brief Facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows;

3. The writ petitioners, who are arrayed as 1^st respondent in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024, filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 praying for declaration that the rate decided by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 7(b) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, they sought a direction to respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petitions to determine the compensation payable to them in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and to pay the amount with interest.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No. 11108 of 2017 is a company which was promoted by the husband of petitioner in W.P.No. 11109 of 2007. These writ petitioners are the appellants in writ appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2022. The 1^st appellant company purchased an extent of 62 cents of land comprised in survey nos. 241/1 A, 256/2B, 256/C in the name of first appellant and an extent of 2.44 acres in survey no. 241/1A and 256/2C in the name of second appellant. Both the lands are in Irugur Village. It is stated that the factory and the building was constructed in the land owned by the company and huge money has been invested and machinery has been installed. The Government issued several notifications for acquisition of lands measuring vast extent of 627.8 Acres in four villages including Irugur Village for expansion of run way at Coimbatore Airport. The Government issued notification invoking provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisitions of land for Industrial Purpose for acquiring lands.

5. It is seen that some of the lands belong to the Government and other department lands also transferred for this purpose. As far as writ petitioners are concerned, it is stated that a notification dated 11.05.2012 was issued by the District Collector under Section 3 (2) of Tamil Nadu acquisition of land for Industrial purposes Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as State Act). Although the writ petitioners submitted their objections to the Collector, it is contended by the writ petitioners that no communication was received from the Land Acquisition Officer thereafter. However, G.O. Ms. No. 251, dated 31.12.2013, was later issued under Section 3(1) of the State Act, and published in the Government Gazette. The writ petitioners raised several grounds regarding procedural irregularities in the land acquisition process. However, the primary issue in these appeals relates to the determination of compensation. Acquisition proceedings are not challenged by the writ petitioners.

6. The writ petitioners claim that they were initially unaware of the specific lands which are being acquired for the Coimbatore Airport expansion. They had already availed huge loans for their business, and due to the acquisition proceedings, the loan was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), leading to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the bank. The contention of the writ petitioners is that they were not informed about the award proceedings initiated by the respondents. It is stated that it was only through appl