Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
SAKTHIVEL – Appellant
Versus
The State of TamilNadu – Respondent
WP No. 19351 of 2022 | WMP Nos.18699 to 18701 & 24177 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.N.Subramaniam
For the Respondents: Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader

A writ petition challenging a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 is not maintainable unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with mala fides.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 - Section 7(2) - Notice under Section 7(2) is a call for agreement or negotiation - A writ petition challenging such notice is not maintainable unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with mala fides - If land acquisition proceedings are concluded, the notice loses relevance - Petitioners may pursue grievances in pending proceedings. (Paras 2-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a notice dated 24.01.2022 issued under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The notice called upon them to submit explanations or disagreements for negotiation regarding land acquisition for an industrial purpose. The petitioners sought to quash the notice and direct fixation of open market value before the enquiry.

Findings of Court:
The court held that a writ against such a notice is not entertainable unless the notice was issued by an incompetent authority or was tainted with mala fides. The court further noted that the land acquisition proceedings had already been concluded and possession of part of the land had been taken, rendering the notice irrelevant. The petitioners were at liberty to raise any grievances regarding subsequent actions in pending proceedings.

Issues: Maintainability of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under Section 7(2) is merely a call for agreement or negotiation; it does not give rise to a cause of action for a writ unless it suffers from lack of jurisdiction or mala fides. Once the acquisition proceedings are concluded, the notice becomes infructuous. Result : Writ petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The call letter issued under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 dated 24.01.2022 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. Section 7(2) of the Act enumerates that “Where the amount has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, it shall be paid in accordance in accordance with such agreement”.

3. The petitioners, in response to the notice, are expected to submit their explanations or disagreement for negotiation or otherwise. However, no writ against such notice is entertainable. A writ petition challenging a notice can be entertained, if it is issued by an incompetent authorities having no jurisdiction or tainted with allegation of mala fides.

4. In the present case, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that the land acquisition proceedings were concluded and in respect of portion of the land possession also had been taken. That being the factum, the impugned notice has lost its relevance. However, if any grievances exist regarding the subsequent actions initiated and concluded, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their grounds in the pending proceedings.

5. Thus, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAMSAKTHIVEL – AppellantVersusThe State of TamilNadu – RespondentWP No. 19351 of 2022 | WMP Nos.18699 to 18701 & 24177 of 2022

A writ petition challenging a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 is not maintainable unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with mala fides.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
SAKTHIVEL – Appellant
Versus
The State of TamilNadu – Respondent
WP No. 19351 of 2022 | WMP Nos.18699 to 18701 & 24177 of 2022