STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R.VENKEDUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common order dtd. 23/1/2013 passed in the batch of writ petitions came to be challenged in the present intra-court appeal.

(2.) The State is the appellant before this Court. The respondents preferred writ petitions challenging the notice issued under Sec. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), mainly on the ground that the District Collector conducted an enquiry under Sub-Sec. (2) to Sec. 3 of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Sec. 3(1) of the Act is to be set aside. In other words, the respondents would contend that the Collector has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry and the Act contemplates the Government to conduct enquiry. The Writ Court considered the issue and made a finding that the Collector for the purpose of Sec. 3(2) is given delegated power to the cause notice and call for objections. This is a specific delegation. It does not empower the Collector to hear and pass orders under Sec. 3(1) of the Act. The Writ Court has proceeded on the basis that Sec. 3(1) notification was also issued by the Collector. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding was set aside.

(3.) The Writ Court placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of J & K Housing Board Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul,2011 10 SCC 714 and V.G.P.Housing (P) Ltd Vs. The Secretary to Government (W.P.No.2055 and 2056 of 2010 dtd. 10/7/2012). In which, the Apex Court held that "It is settled law that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefore in the Act". The Writ Court proceeded on the basis that both enquiry under Sec. 3(2) of the Act and notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act had been issued by the District Collector and therefore, the entire acquisition is contrary to the procedures contemplated under the Act.