COIMBATORE PIONEER MILLS LTD Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P. 1977/98 is the Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd., who owned the lands in Survey No. 121/B, 121/2B, 121/3, 121/4, and 119/1 of an extent of 4.51 acres in Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore South Taluk. In the year 1996, the said lands were proposed to be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for the purpose of constructing a hostel, house sites and burial ground etc., At that relevant point of proposal, one Mr. G. Rangaswamy was shown as the managing Director of the petitioner mill and the notice under Section 4(2) of the said Act was issued to him. THE petitioner herein sent a reply to the Land Acquisition Officer, bringing out the fact that the said Mr. Rangaswamy had resigned the post of Managing Director and he has nothing to do with the petitioner-mill. Apart from that the petitioner also submitted the objections for the acquisition of the land on the ground that the land is required for the expansion of the housing scheme for their employees. THE adjacent lands have already been plotted out for construction of residential quarters and the employees of the petitioner mill have been allotted the plots at concessional rates to enable them to construct the residential houses. THE then Collector, who enquired the objections submitted by the petitioner-mill, by his proceedings dated 22.9.96 had dropped the proposed acquisition proceedings. THE PSG, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., which was formed in the year 1985 to look after the basic housing needs of the employees of the PSG and Sons Charities passed a resolution on 14.11.96 to buy the lands of an extent of 4.50 acres at the cost of Rs. 40 lakhs per acre. THE petitioner-mill through the Board of Directors resolved to sell the same to PSG Co-operative House Building Society in their meeting held on 22.11.96. THEreafter the sale agreement was entered into by both the parties. After getting clearance from the land ceiling authorities, the Co-operative Housing Society sought the permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Housing to purchase the lands. THE Registrar, Co-operative Housing also granted necessary permission on 6.11.97. Subsequently sale deeds were executed by the petitioner in favor of the Co-operative Building Society.

(2.) AT that stage, the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 informing the proposal to acquire the land. This time also the notice was sent to Mr. G. Rangasamy who has nothing to do with the petitioner-mill about which the Land Acquisition Officer has already been informed in the year 1996 itself. AT the instance of one Chandraganthiammal, mother of the said Mr. Rangasamy, some steps were taken to declare the land as ?surplus? under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act or otherwise the land is proposed to be acquired. On coming to know of the acquisition proceedings, the Co-operative Housing Society also submitted the objections stating that they are the interested persons in the land and they should also be served with notice. The second, respondent, however, granted time for the Society to file their objections and the Society to file their objections and the Society also submitted their objections for acquisition of the land. The petitioner also submitted their objections for the acquisition. Now at this stage, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from issuing any notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978.

(3.) MR. R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. 2728/98 contended that the acquisition proceedings initiated earlier were dropped in the year 1996 after considering the objections raised by the vendor of the petitioner. There is absolutely no reason for the respondents to reconsider their decision of dropping the acquisition proceedings and to initiate fresh proceeding. Further when the District Collector, the appropriate authority under the Act to consider and take a decision with regard to the suitability of the land or otherwise, it is not open to the Government to issue direction for the acquisition of the land. From the counter affidavit it is clear that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated on the representation of a particular association and as such the Government has not reinitiated the acquisition proceedings on reconsideration of the Collector's decision to drop the acquisition proceedings. But, however, without applying their mind, the Government has simply obliged the requisition made by a particular association. Since the Collector has dropped the acquisition proceedings, the parties have entered into the sale transaction. When the parties have changed their position on the basis of the decision of the Collector, it is not open to the Government now to acquire the land on the ground of promissory estoppel. Further when the land is being used for the purpose of providing house sites for the poor workers who are the members of the petitioner-Society and the Housing Cooperative Society of the employees having purchased the land, it may not be proper for the Government to acquire the land for the same purpose of providing, house sites to some other group. There is no doubt that the Co-operative Housing Society is also utilizing the land only for the public purpose i.e., providing house sites for their own members. Hence the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated by mala fides and illegality.