V PALANIAPPA UDAYAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common order dated 12. 8. 1993. passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 3861 to 3863, 6613 to 6615, 6615, 6673 to 6675, 6772, 6839 to 6841,7796 to 7798 and 9032 of 1993 all the writ petitions were dismissed. W. A. No. 1258 of 1993 is preferred against the order in W. P. No. 6674 of 1993. In the writ petitions, W. P. Nos. 21426 to 21446 of 1993, the petitioners have challenged the very same acquisition in question. Hence, the writ appeal and the writ petitions are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants are the petitioners in the writ petitions. THEy sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. G. O. Ms. No. 186, Industries (MIE) Department, dated 15. 5. 1992 was issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act proposing to acquire vast extent of land for a public purpose, to wit, for Pig Iron Project to be set up by Southern Iron and Steel company Limited (for short, SISCOL), a new Company formed by the Tamil Nadu industrial Development Corporation (for short TIDCO), and Government undertaking in association with Messrs. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Coimbatore, as Company promoter, G. O. Ms. No. 683, Industries (MIE)I Department, dated 8. 12. 1992. was issued under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act declaring that the lands mentioned in the schedule have to be acquired for a public purpose, viz. , for establishing a Pig Iron Project in No. 33, Pottaneri Village, Mettur Taluk, salem District. About 552 acres are acquired under the aforesaid notifications. THE petitioners who are the appellants before us claim to have interest in certain portions of the vast extent of land acquired under the aforesaid notifications. THEy challenged the acquisition on the grounds that since the acquisitions was for a public purpose, it was vitiated because no contribution towards compensation payable was made out of public revenue that the notifications issued under Secs. 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Act were not published in accordance with law, that the provisions contained in Rules 3 (b) and 4 (b) of the Rules framed under the Act were not followed inasmuch as the objections filed by the objectors viz. , the petitioners, were not sent to the company for whose benefit the lands in question are acquired and that the notices ought to have been issued to some of the individual petitioners as they are the joint owners of some of the lands. Learned single Judge has negatived all the contentions.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the contention that individual notices ought to have been sent to all the joint owners of some of the lands also does not have any merit. In the case of acquisition of land, the person in whose favour the land stands must be served with the notice and that is sufficient and it is not necessary that all the joint owners whose names do not appear in the land records need be served. Hence, we reject this contention as well.