STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SAROJA MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows: An extent of 39.93 acres, in S. No. 70/1C, 71/1C and 72/1 etc., in Singanallur was acquired under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) and was placed at the disposal of the respondent mills. The public purpose as noted in the section 4 (1) notification and declaration under section 6 was, for putting up residential quarters for the labourers of the mills under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme. The respondent mill claimed that it had utilised an extent of 5.78 acres by putting up a few houses. This is disputed on behalf of the State. However, since not very much turns upon the same, we need not dwell at length on that. In so far as the other extent was not utilised the Government made proposal in G.O. Ms. No. 4293 dated 25th October, 1966 for the resumption of the remaining extent. That G.O. may be extracted:"In the circumstances reported, the Government accept the proposal of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, that the unutilised lands measuring an extent of 34.15 acres acquired on behalf of M/s. Saroja Mills Ltd,, Singanallur under the Land Acquisition Act be resumed. The Commissioner of Labour is requested to take necessary action in consultation with the Collector of Coimbatore in the matter.The Commissioner of Labour, Madras is also requested to send a report to the Government through the Chairman, State Housing Board whether the lands after resumption can be utilised for construction of houses under Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme (Govt. Sector) in due course. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Labour acting on the G.O. called upon the respondent mill to hand over the land measuring an extent of 34.15 acres directed to be resumed. To that the respondent mill wrote a reply on 20th September, 1969, agreeing to hand over the remaining utilised portion of the said extent of 34.15 acres. It was, at this stage, the Government passed the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 382 Housing dt. 13th May, 1977, which is as follows:"In the Government order first read above, the Government ordered that the unutillised extent of land in Singanallur village (Coim-batore taluk and district measuring 34.15 acres (out of 39.93) acres in S. No. 70/1 etc. acquired on behalf of Saroja Mills, Singanallur be handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for its various housing schemes.The Collector of Coimbatore in his letter third read above has reported that an extent of 39.93 acres in S. No. 70/1 etc. of Singanallur village was acquired as per award No. 11/55 dt. 18th May, 1975, and so there is a difference of 0.10 cents in the total extent indicated in the Government order first read above.The Regional Director Central Ware-Housing Corporation, Madras has requested for allotment of land in the area for construction of godown in Coimbatore taluk.Thiruvalargal Saroja Mills, Singanallur, Coimbatore has not utilised the land for the purpose for which the land was acqui-red. In the circumstances, the Government direct that the extent of 39.93 acres in S. No. 70/1 etc. of Singanallur village Coimbatore Taluk and district be resumed immediately on payment to the Saroja Mills of Rs.52,752.37 inclusive of 15 per cent solatium based on the cost of the premises fixed at the time of acquisition.The Collector of Coimbatore is requested to arrange to hand over immediately after resumption of the lands an extent of 5.95 acres lying to the west of Tiruchi-Peelamedu Erode road to the Central Ware Housing Corporation, Madras on payment of by the institution of proportionate share of Rs.52,752.37. The Government also direct that the balance of 33.98 acres be handed-over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on payment of proportionate share of Rs.5,752,37. The Collector of Coimbatore is requested to take immediate action in the matter as the Central Ware-Housing Corporation is in need of the land very urgently.This G.O. was questioned in W.P. No. 3442 of 1977 which came up for adjudication before our learned brother Justice Padma-nabhan. Pending the writ petition, the Government made a proposal by its letter dated 18th January, 1980, calling upon the respondent to state whether it was agreeable to the assignment of 33 93 acres under BSO: 21 on payment of the market value of the lands and whether the respondent would agree to withdraw the said writ petition. The further condition was within three months it should submit a scheme for construction of bouses to the mills workers under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme (Private Sector) and for grant of loan and subsidy for the scheme, through the Commissioner of Labour to Government. On the strength of this letter, it was argued before the learned Judge that in view of this proposal the impugned G.O. had become ineffective and the further argument was that because the respondent mill had utilised an extent of 5.78 acres by putting up building in any event, that extent cannot be resumed, Though opposed on behalf of the State, the learned Judge accepted the contentions and gave clarification with regard to the proposed extent of resumption holding that only 34.15 acres alone can be resumed. The further clarification that was given was with regard to the amount to be paid to the respondent which did not take into account the excess compensation and the solatium that was paid by the respondent as per the judgment of the High Court which amounted to Rs. 38,373.41. Therefore, it was held that this amount will be due to the respondent. In these terms, the writ petition was ordered. We are obliged to conclude in view of the clarification that the learned Judge had practically held the impugned G.O. to be inoperative. Thus, the writ appeal by the State.

(2.) IT is urged on behalf of the State by the learned Government Pleader, Mr. C. Chinna-swami, that it is impossible to hold that by reason of a subsequent proposal to assignthe remaining unutilised extent under B.S.O. 21, the Government- s power of resumption of lands is in any way rendered invalid. One of the conditions entered into between the State and the respondent Mills at the time of acquisition was that the entire extent of 39. 95 acres shall be utilised for the purpose of acquisition. Merely because, the respondent had utilised an extent of 5. 78 acres, it would not follow there is no breach of the condition entered into between the parties. If, therefore, there was a breach there is nothing wrong in the Government acquiring the entire extent of 39. 95 acres. IT is not open to the respondent mills to say that it had utilised one portion Thereof and that must be excluded from the purview of resumption. As regards the subsequent correspondence, even assuming there was a mistake with regard to the extent, that is not a matter to be corrected in writ jurisdiction. The Court ought to have directed the parties to work out their rights by negotiations and should not have interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same argument will apply even as regards the amount to be paid to the respondent.