PADMAVATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, all the Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN all the Writ Petitions the petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to install or take over their agricultural cultivable lands under S.F. Nos.298/1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 299/1,2,3 -A,3 -B, 300/1, 2,3,4,5 in Toto acre 17.67 cents and under S.F. Nos.299/4,5 acre 4 for the formation of multi layer double coated paper board factory through the Tamil Nadu news print and papers limited (TNPL) under the scheme of Rule 110 of Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly Rule which are existing in Manaparai Taluk, Mondipatti Revenue Village on the basis of the resolution dated 07.05.2013, without giving opportunity or notification to the agriculturists.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a detailed counter and also filed vacate stay petition. In the counter filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.4397 and 4398 of 2014, it is very clearly stated that the acquisition process has been done as per the statutory provisions after giving proper notifications and the lands have been handed over to the fifth respondent on 26.02.2014 and now they are the absolute owner and in possession of the lands in dispute. The lands were acquired for the starting of a state -of -the -art -technology based Multi Layer Double Coated Paper Board industry at Mondipatti, K.Periyapatti (North) and Chettichatram Villages in Manapparai Taluk of Trichy District. The district is a backward area and by virtue of starting the industry, the entire district will be developed. According to them, the Government published a notice under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the land owners and any another persons, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land which is proposed to be acquired, to show cause why the land should not be acquired. The notice under Section 3(2) of Act has been issued on 23.10.2013 and thereafter, the petitioners and all other land owners were called for enquiry under Section 3(2) was held on 28.11.2013. The petitioners have participated in the enquiry. Thereafter, Section 3(1) notice was issued on 27.12.2013 and the same was published on 30.12.2013. On publication, as per Section 4(1), the lands vested with the Government. Therefore, 4(2) notice was issued on 25.01.2014 and thereafter, the lands were transferred on 26.02.2014. Therefore, in W.P.(MD)No.4397 and 4398 of 2014 the petitioners have challenged the 3(2) notice and thereafter, they have not chosen to file any writ petition challenging the notice under Sections 3(1) and 4(2) of the Act. Under Section 4(3) of the Act, if any person refuses and fails to comply, the Collector may take possession of the land. In the present case, the Government have complied with Section 3(2) notice and thereafter, 3(1) notice has been published. On and from 27.12.2013, the lands vested with the Government. By letter dated 22.01.2014 issued under Section 4(2) of the Act, the land owners received it on 25.01.2014 and the period comes to end on 24.02.2014 and since no challenge has been made, the lands were transferred by a certificate dated 26.02.2014. In fact, in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.12521, 12522, 10010 and 4397 of 2014, this Court has closed the interlocutory application stating that no interim order could be granted unless the petitioners challenges the subsequent notice issued on 27.12.2013 under Section 3(1) of the Act. Further, after taking over the possession of the lands, they have proceeded with the levelling and construction activities. The project cost is 1500 Crores and the project has to be completed by the end of 2015. If the factory is established and run, vast scope of direct and indirect employment for more than 2,000 people. The majority of the lands taken is only non -agricultural lands. The allegation that there are more than 2000 families are suffering is not correct since only 620 families are in Mondipatti Revenue Village and the petitioners are not the residents of the village. The petitioners are having jewellery shop in Kavalkaranpatti in Karur District and more so, the lands are dry and barren lands.