IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.34221 of 2025 R.Arockia Clement Arul .. Petitioner vs

1.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector, Office of Collectorate, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.

4.The District Revenue Officer, Kaverraipettai, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

5.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

SIPCOT Industrial Park Scheme, Gummuidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

6.The Managing Director, SIPCOT, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondents (R6 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 23.10.2025 made in W.P.No.30527 of 2025)

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 23.04.2025 vide proceedings in File No.CLA-SIP/2025/40/01/05/0001 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to exclude the petitioner’s property measuring an extent of 0.94 cents situated in Survey Nos.67/2, 67/4, 67/5, 67/6, 67/7, Vanniyamalli Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District from the acquisition proceeding pursuant to preliminary notification published on 01.08.2024 under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Abishek Murthy for R6

ORDER

An order dated 23.04.2025 of the third respondent in response to objections raised by the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner asserts that he purchased 94 cents of land in Survey Nos.67/2, 67/4, 67/5, 67/6 and 67/7 in Vanniyamalli Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk under sale deed dated 27.01.2003 bearing Document No.111 of 2003. Thereafter, it is stated that the revenue records were mutated in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the property was purchased for purposes of establishing a hollow blocks manufacturing unit. The petitioner also states that he has obtained approval from the panchayat union and registered the unit under applicable GST statutes.

3. Upon being notified that land was proposed to be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, the petitioner had lodged objections seeking exclusion of his land. The order impugned herein was issued after rejecting the objections of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order on three grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the acquisition is for purposes of establishing an industrial project and the petitioner is already running an industrial unit on the land proposed to be acquired. The second ground being that the lands of neighbouring land owners, who are running similar commercial or industrial activities, have been excluded. The third ground is that the property lies on the south-west periphery of the land proposed to be acquired under the Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not refute the claim that the petitioner is running the industrial unit. He also submits that the averment that the land is located on the south-west periphery has not been denied. He seeks an opportunity to raise these objections and seek exclusion.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General responded to these contentions by submitting that the petitioner’s land falls within lands forming part of the scheme. He also submits that the petitioner is not running the industrial unit, as evidenced by the photographs that he has handed over. He also submits that the petitioner has not filed consent to establish or consent to operate under