Acquisition of land for transport infrastructure is valid under the industrial purpose definition, and there is no statutory time limit for passing awards under Tamil Nadu Acquisition Act.

ORDER :

S. Sounthar, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Notification No.VI(1)/330(c-8)/2021 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 26.11.2021 for acquisition of his land under Section 3(1) of TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT , 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ' INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT ' for brevity).

2. The petitioner is the owner of land in Re-Survey No.3132/8, Block No.52, Balfour Road. He had put up a residential building thereon and he has been living there for more than 50 years. The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice under Section 3(2) of the TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT , 1997, for acquisition of portion of his property with an extent of 160 sq.meters. The petitioner objected the same. Thereafter, 3^rd respondent issued a Notification in Na.Ka.No.11/Ni.A/Se.Ma.Ra.Thi/2018, dated 04.01.2022 under Section 7(2) of the INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.1374 of 2022. After hearing the parties, this Court by order dated 07.11.2022 directed the petitioner to appear before the respondents for private negotiation. The petitioner appeared before the respondents/private negotiation committee and informed them that the subject property was the only property available to him and requested them to make a change in the design of their project so as to give a permanent solution to the petitioner. Thereafter, possession notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition in W.P.No.22520 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 01.08.2023 by directing the petitioner to handover subject property with liberty to the respondents to pass an award. Alternatively, the petitioner was also given a liberty to request for private negotiation regarding determination of compensation. Since the respondents have not agreed for private negotiation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the 3(1) notification issued under INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT .

3. Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following points:-

(i) The acquisition made by the respondents for the purpose of providing transport facility to public will not come under the expression 'Industrial Purpose' as defined under INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT and therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated under INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT is not valid.

(ii) In view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1374 of 2022 directing the parties to go for private negotiation, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents got impliedly quashed and in case of failure of the private negotiation, the respondents have to go for fresh notification and they cannot continue the earlier acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of 3(2) notice.

(iii) Under the provisions of Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as 'Central Act 30 of 2013'), the award shall be passed within twelve months from the date of final notification. However, in the case on hand, the award was passed beyond the statutory period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on following decisions:-