S RAJASEKARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both writ petitions came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The petitioners in both writ petitions are the son and wife of one Sambandam. In these two writ petitions, the contentions raised are identical, i.e., two petitioners want to challenge the communication, dated 02.11.2010 issued by the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT - Orgadam and Irungattukottai Expansion Schemes and seek to quash the same.

(2.) When the matter came up for final hearing on 31.01.2012, the counsel appearing for the SIPCOT stated that the matter cannot be heard without the SIPCOT being made as a party as they are the requesitioning body and that they are the necessary and proper party and sought for time to get themselves impleaded. However, this court felt that it is unnecessary to further waste the time and hence suo motu impleaded the SIPCOT as a necessary party. Therefore, the SIPCOT represented by the Chairman and Managing Director was made as party third respondent and the cause title stands appropriately modified. The argument of Ms.Namadha Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for SIPCOT was also heard.

(3.) By the impugned communication dated 02.11.2010, the petitioners were informed that their request for compensation in respect of the land in Survey No. 33/2 cannot be considered as the said land was kept as an Open Space in respect of park and road to be laid in the approved layout. The State Government by G.O. Ms. No. 141, Industries, SIPCOT, dated 14.7.2008 had stated that in respect of the approved layouts, the lands reserved for public purpose if they were handed over to the local bodies, the compensation will have to be given only to the local bodies. When the SIPCOT sought for clarification, the Director of Town and Country Planning in his letter dated 18.10.2010 informed them that the lands reserved for Open Space Regulations (OSR) will have to be handed over to the local bodies by way of gift deed. For those lands which were handed over by gift deed, the compensation need not be paid to the erstwhile land owners. Hence the request for grant of compensation cannot be considered. Even this order came to be passed after the first petitioner moved this court with W.P. No. 16675 of 2010 and the second petitioner moved this court with W.P. No. 16676 of 2010. This court by two separate orders dated 29.7.2010 had directed the petitioners representation dated 5.4.2010 to be considered on merits and to pass orders within the time frame. It is pursuant to the said direction, the respondent SIPCOT had consulted the Director of Town and Country Planning as noted above and had issued the impugned communication rejecting the request.