S ALAMELU Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants. THE appellants are the owners of the lands which were acquired by the respondent-State for establishment of an industrial complex viz., SIPCOT. THE proposal was initiated in G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 6.6.1995 to acquire an extent of 300 acres for SIPCOT industrial purpose with several multinational companies, non-resident Indians and local entrepreneurs evincing keen interest in investing in Tamil Nadu, especially near Madras. As it was felt that the said extent of 300 acres may not be sufficient, the Government issued subsequent G.O.Ms.No.248 Industries (MIG.2) Department dated 27.10.1995 proposing acquisition for 1400 acres. Later on in G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries (MID-II) Department, dated 24.2.1997, the Government accepted the proposal for acquisition of land to an extent of 935.52.0 hectares of land approximately 2300 acres, including patta and poromboke lands. By the above Government Orders, it was also indicated that the acquisition must be made invoking emergency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act').

(2.) IN terms of the above Government Orders, notification under Section 4(1) was issued and declaration under Section 6 was published in the Government Gazette on 13.11.1997. For completion of facts, it must also be mentioned that the possession of the lands was taken and the same was handed over to SIPCOT on 9.1.1998. The appellants had approached this Court questioning the acquisition proceedings, by way of filing writ petitions some time during February, 1998 after the Award was passed and possession was taken. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was basically on the following grounds viz., (i) that the lands were purchased by the appellants much prior to the Section 4(1) notification and their names were found in the revenue records, but nevertheless, their names did not find a place in the notification under Section 4(1) (ii) that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents to invoke the emergency provision and (iii) that the lands in question were approved plots by the Government in the year 1995 itself before Section 4(1) notification. All the above contentions were rejected by the learned single Judge and for the same reasons, the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Government Advocate is that as the acquisition is for the purpose of SIPCOT, a corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, it can be brought within the definition of Section 3(cc) and excluded by Section 3(e) of the Act.