Procedural adherence in land acquisition is essential; failure to consider objections and conduct enquiries as per statutory rules renders notifications invalid.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge in the Writ Petition was to Section 3(1) notification issued under the TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT , 1997, by the Government seeking to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner.

2. The notification under Section 3(2) of the TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT , 1997 [for brevity "the Act"] was issued on 27.10.2009. Many of the land owners including the appellant herein had challenged the said notice mainly contending that there was no personal or individual notice to the land owners as contemplated under the Act and Rules. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 30.08.2010 granting liberty to the petitioner and other land owners to file their objections on or before 13.09.2010 and directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry and pass final orders.

3. Though enquiry was conducted, no notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was made for considerably long period and finally a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued on 23.03.2022. The said notification was challenged in the writ petition in W.P.No.28919 of 2022 by the appellant on the ground that he was not given an opportunity and his objections were not forwarded to the acquiring Authority and the remarks of the acquiring Authority were not considered and no order was passed rejecting his objections. Therefore, the notification under Section 3(2) of the Act is vitiated.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the State in the Writ Petition claiming that the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected as early as on 23.07.2011 and therefore the notification is perfectly valid. The delay in issuing Section 3(1) notification was sought to be justified on the ground that there were other Writ Petitions filed by other land owners, which went up on appeal upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only after conclusion of the said Page No.: 3 of 10 proceedings, final notification under Section 3(1) was issued.

5. The writ Court has found that the petitioner in his subsequent representation dated 11.08.2011 had admitted that an enquiry was conducted on 14.02.2011 and his representation was considered. Therefore, the writ Court concluded that the claim that no enquiry was conducted was incorrect. The representation dated 11.08.2011 appears to have been sent by an owners association. Though there is a reference to the enquiry made by the District Collector on 16.02.2010 and 14.02.2011 we are unable to find any admission regarding the enquiry into the representation of the petitioner in the said letter dated 11.08.2011. Thereafter, the appellant has been informed under the Right to Information Act that his petition was rejected as early as on 23.07.2011.

6. A reference is also made to W.P.No.18070 of 2010, which is the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition. In view of the specific claim made by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant's objections were never considered and in the light of the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, wherein, it was clearly stated that the enquiry was conducted on 14.02.2011 and objections were received from the petitioner, we had required the learned Government Pleader to produce the original file relating to the enquiry. The original file has been placed before us.

7. Upon perusal of the original file we find that there was no consideration of the petitioner's representation. Though the representations received from others along with the remarks of the SIPCOT have been considered, the petitioner's representation is conspicuous by its absence.

8.