S SUNDERRAJ Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a proprietor of an electronic industry by name Raj Electronic Industry has purchased the land measuring an extent of 3986 sq.ft., on 5.12.2001 from one Dedorit Kannagi comprised in Survey No.242/2A/1 situate at Kamaraj Salai, Thattachavady, Pondicherry. After the said purchase, she has sold an extent of 300 sq.ft., of land to a third party. The necessary changes in the revenue records were effected. The petitioner's industry has been registered provisionally as a small scale business establishment by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Pondicherry bearing Registration No.34/02/23933 dated 10.6.2002. The petitioner is authorised to manufacture computers and the necessary application was submitted on 1.8.2002 to the Pondicherry Planning Authorities for putting up industrial godown for computers and electronic items and necessary fees were also paid thereon.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner came to know that the second respondent has notified by way of a paper publication in Malaimalar dated 4.6.2003 to the effect that the land measuring an extent of 0.96.00 hectares in R.S.No.242/2B in Thattanchavady village was to be acquired under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even though the petitioner has purchased the land as early as on 5.12.2001 and necessary changes in the revenue records were effected, the petitioner was not shown as the owner of the land. The learned counsel has further pointed out that as early as on 10.11.2000, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Government of Pondicherry has handed over possession of the lands in question to the then owner viz., Tmt.Dedorit Kannagi. The learned counsel has contended that inasmuch as an Officer in the rank of Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) has taken note of the correct name of the owner of land as Tmt.Dedorit Kannagi, the present notification, notifying the lands in question without disclosing either the above mentioned Tmt.Dedorit Kannagi or the subsequent purchaser viz., the writ petitioner is bad in law. It is also contended that when the authorities having granted a provisional registration to the petitioner for a small scale business establishment on 10.6.2002, they cannot plead ignorance about the subsequent purchase made by the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the impugned notification discloses that the name of the land owner only as Thitharo Balaraman. The learned counsel has further contended that the above said individual is none-else than the original owner of the land prior to 1972 and Tmt.Dedorit Kannagi has purchased the same from the legal representatives lands as early as in the year 1972. The learned counsel has further contended that even though a corrigendum was issued disclosing the correct survey number, the authorities have not taken care of to ascertain about the actual ownership of the land in question. The learned counsel has further contended that the authorities proceeded with the impugned notification with a great haste without taking note of the fact that the petitioner's industry itself is recognised as one of the small scale industry and the said industry has entered into various business commitments, which will be useful for the industrial growth of the State.