R RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged Section 4(1) notification in respect of the lands to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Pooling station. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of Punja lands measuring about 33.45 acres, 33.99 acres and 34.54 acres comprised in S. Nos. 606/2B, 606/2C and 606/2D in Ettaiyapuram Village and also 15.68 acres of Punja land comprised in S. No. 606/2A totally 117.66 acres at Ettaiyapuram village.

(2.) The 4th respondent officials through private negotiations intended to purchase the property for commercial purpose. The petitioner made offer to sell the land at Rs. 26.30 lakhs per acre (Rs. 63 lacks per hectare). However, when the negotiation was under process, a proposal under Section 4(1) of-the Land Acquisition Act was sent by the Tahsildar Ettayapuram to the District Collector Tuticorin District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti. The first respondent granted administrative sanction through G.O. Ms. No. 29 dated 21.4.2011 invoking Section 17(1) of the Act. On 9.6.2011, 4(1) notification was issued by publication. On 22.6.2011, declaration under Section 6 was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 4, supporting the 4(1) notification.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is seen that the acquisition of lands is for the purpose of establishing power Sub station at Tuticorin. The establishment of sub station would facilitate in meeting the power demand of southern States, especially in Tamilnadu. Records also reveal that there was an attempt by the 4th respondent to negotiate privately for purchasing the lands which are sought to be acquired. Considering the importance and necessity of establishment of power sub station in the State, this Court suggested to the parties, to settle the matter amicably, so that public purpose would be achieved soon. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Corporation readily agreed to negotiate and settle the matter. Subsequently, they came out with the following proposals.