MANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these batch of Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the Declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ?the Act?) in G.O.Ms. No. 685, INdustries (MIE-1) dated 8.12.1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.12.1992. The respective owners of the lands which are sought to be acquired under the said Declaration are the Petitioners. The points raised in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same and the arguments of senior counsel Mr. N.R. Chandran for some of the Writ Petitioners has been adopted by the other counsel. I therefore, proceed to deal with all the Writ Petitions by this common order.

(2.) THE lands are in Pottaneri Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. By a notification under S. 4(1) of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 184 Industries (MIE-I) dated 15-5-1992 the lands were notified for acquisition as being ?needed for public purpose? to wit, for the Pig Iron Project to be set up by Southern Iron and Steel Company Limited, a new Company formed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited (TIDCO) in association with Messrs. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Coimbatore as Co-promoter. To put it in a nutshell the acquisition is or a Private Company, registered under the Companies Act, of which the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which is a Government Company is a co-promoter. This aspect of the case is later elaborated in the counter affidavit of the respondents. THE Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 20.5.1992. It is stated that the substance of the Notification was published in dailies on 23.5.1992 and 26.5.1992. THE petitioners were also served with notice under R. 3(a) of the Rules framed under the Act. THE substance of the Notification was published in the village by tom-tom and by affixture in the Village Administrative Office, Sub-Registrar's office and the Police Station. THE objections of the petitioners were communicated to the requisitioning body in August, 1992 and the remarks of the requisitioning body were conveyed to the writ petitioners on 7.9.1992. THEreafter another opportunity was given to the owners of the land by serving notice under R. 3(b) of the Rules, requesting them to appear for an enquiry on 28.9.1992, 29.9.1992 and 30.9.1992. Some of the owners or the land did participate in the enquiry on 28.9.1992. THE objections of the owners of the land were rejected and the Land Acquisition Officer recommended the acquisition of the lands and forwarded his report to the Government and the respective owners were also informed about the same by a letter dated 28.9.1992. It is thereafter that the Government after considering the report decided to issue the impugned Declaration under S. 6 of the Act.

(3.) MR. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the cases, has reiterated the points taken in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ petitions. The substantial point that is urged before me is with reference to the procedure to be followed in this particular case, namely, whether it is procedure under Part II or procedure under Part VII. Instead of relying on the averments in the affidavits and counter affidavits of the parties, I will do well to refer to the statutory Notification and Declaration for the purpose of understanding the purpose of acquisition, namely, whether it is for a company or for a public purpose and whether the compensation is being paid by the pa Company or part of the compensation flows from the Public Exchequer. A decision on the above points will decide the fate of the case. The Declaration under S. 6 of the Act is as follows:?