IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NOS. 51874 & 51877 OF 2025

1. M/s.Arigaa Crane Services Private Limited Rep. By Its Directors Mangaiyarkkarasi, Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram-602 105. and another

2. SANKARASEKAR Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram-602 105.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Chairman And Managing Director State Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Limited (sipcot) 19-a, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 631 501.

3.The Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 105

4.The Estate Officer Sipcot Industrial Park, Vallam, Vadagal, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram 602 105 Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 06.01.2009 granting administrative sanction for establishing an Industrial park and preliminary notifications under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997and sub-sequential Gazette notification No.447 G.O.Ms. No.156, 158 industries (SIPCOT-LA) dated 29.11.2011 issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) quash the same as arbitrary and illegal For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Silambanan, Sr.counsel, for M/s.Nagarjun S For Respondent: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned acquisition proceedings in G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 06.01.2009

2. Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner, being unaware of the acquisition proceedings, had purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 16.03.2011, which is much before the final acquisition notice dated 29.11.2011. Aggrieved over the said final acquisition notice, a writ petition in W.P.No.6993 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2014, by directing the petitioner to make a representation before the District Collector for allotment of land. Pursuant to the said order, a representation was filed by the petitioner. However, the said representation was not at all considered in a proper manner. Under these circumstances, now, the respondents had issued an eviction order dated 28.07.2025 against the petitioner.

5. Further, he would submit that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to statutory time limits under the provisions of law and hence, the aforesaid eviction order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the acquisition Notification dated 29.11.2011 issued under Section 3(1)

and the subsequent award.

6. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the aforesaid eviction order dated 28.07.2025 was already challenged before this Court in WP.No.31483 of 2025. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 24.11.2025, whereby a specific direction was issued to the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within a period of 2 weeks, failing which, the respondent concerned shall take the assistance of jurisdictional police for evicting the petitioner and taking over the possession. In spite of the same, now, the petitioner had once again approached this Court by challenging the Notification issued by the respondents, which is not proper.

7. Further, they would submit that since the land was acquired for the purpose of plug and play projec