D.KULASEKARAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Sudharshana Sundar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the first respondent. Mr. M. Elumalai, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of the land in S. F. No. 13/1C, 13/2B and 13/3B2 in Pelakuppam Village, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the material documents, which he relies upon as referred to in the representation dated 13. 11. 2019 to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 67/- per sq. ft. , which was fixed by the Committee against S. F. No. 13/C measuring an extent of 1 hectare and 61 ares by applying the principles under the Act 30 of 2013 and also the relevant Rules.

(3.) As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the writ petition is premature. This is so because the Land Acquisition Officer has issued the notice under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and it is open to the petitioner to file his objections to the said notice. After considering the objections, steps would be taken to determine the compensation, which is payable.