Judgment :- The petitioner, a Workers' Sangam, seek for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 30.11.1998, to quash the same and to the extent payment of compensation to the lessees alone at Rs.18,000/- per acre and to direct the second respondent to include the names of the petitioners/workers as well as for payment of compensation apportioning the quantum and rehabilitation. 2. The petitioners state that he and 83 workers of the above Union were engaged in the manufacture of salt covering an area of 2650 acres comprised in Thillai Voyalur, Puzhuthivakkam in Chennai District, and Athipattu village in Thiruvallur District under 21 lessees appointed by the first respondent. They were working for several years hereditarily. The salt was being manufactured from the sea waters by the workers through lessees from time immemorial. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) which is a public sector organization had taken over the said lands for being assigned to various organisations for utilisation of the lands for industrial purpose. The third respondent herein, is an Government of India undertaking and is one of the allottees of the land by the second respondent. Pursuant to the said policy of allotment, TIDCO in the year 1996 allotted 1300 acres of land to the Thermal Power Station. The displaced sea workers namely, 106 boatmen were absorbed and accommodated by the authorities in the Thermal Station as unskilled labourers. Previously they were engaged in salt manufacturing process in that area only as Boat workers. When the Thermal Power Station came into existence, they have been rehabilidated as helpers. The petitioners further state that TIDCO has allotted lands for setting up Ennore Port Trust in an area of 650 acres. As regards the remaining 2000 acres, a Petro Chemical Park is proposed to be set up. At present 83 persons who were working as salt workers in that area are claiming absorption as unskilled labourers which is denied so far. The issue is not a question of suffering by 83 workers alone, but also their entire families depending on the said workers. They are uprooted and are in a state of despair, due to non-employment caused suddenly on account of the above take over of the lands. 3. The issue is not a question of suffering by 83 workers alone, but also their entire families depending on the said workers. They are uprooted and are in a state of despair, due to non-employment caused suddenly on account of the above take over of the lands. 3. The petitioners further state that since then there is no employment for the salt workers in any of the industrial establishments which have been established in the area. As the salt manufacturing is stopped by the lessees at the instance of the second respondent, there is a forced non-employment of the workers. The same amounts illegal retrenchment of the petitioners/workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. In spite of several representations to all the authorities concerned, the respondents have turned deaf ears and hence the petitioners are forced to come before this Court. 4. The petitioners further state that the lessees had negotiated and claimed compensation from the respondents and the respondents have fixed a sum of Rs.18,000/- per acre as compensation to the lessees. The respondents have not taken into account the interests of the workers who are working under the said lessees. Therefore, the petitioners contend that if once payment is made to the 21 lessees directly, the workers would be left in lurch without any help. The agreement to pay to the lessees directly without any provision for the workers, is unjustified. 5. The representation of the workers to the Deputy Commissioner of Salt has not evoked any response. Similar representations given to the Collector and other authorities have also not yielded any result. 6. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is contended that the Central Government is responsible for the controlling of the Salt industry. A total extent of 1434 hectares of land available in the area belongs to the Salt Department and the same was leased out to 33 licensees for the manufacture of salt. The Salt Department is in no way concerned with the problem raised by the "Uppala Thozhilalar Sangam. The licensees were only considered as tenants and the manufacturing activities were conducted by the tenants by employing labourers of their own. When TIDCO proposed to establish Petro Chemical Park they had approached the Central Government for transfer of the land and the Government had approved the proposal. The licensees were only considered as tenants and the manufacturing activities were conducted by the tenants by employing labourers of their own. When TIDCO proposed to establish Petro Chemical Park they had approached the Central Government for transfer of the land and the Government had approved the proposal. It is further reported that the Salt Department is no way concerned with the employment of labourers. It is TIDCO which should pay compensation to the lessees directly through mutual negotiation. The first respondent is also in no way responsible for payment of compensation either to the lessees or to the salt labourers or for providing job opportunities. 7. In the counter filed by the second respondent/TIDCO, it is submitted that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief. All the lessees under whom the petitioners claim to be working are not impleaded as parties. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any relief from the second respondent, more so, without impleading the lessees as parties. It is further stated that even long before take over, the lessees had stopped manufacturing salt for reasons best known to them. TIDCO cannot bear any responsibility for any action taken by the lessees as against their workers. The purpose of the take over of the land by the TIDCO was to acquire the land from the Salt Department to implement the project and TIDCO cannot bear any responsibility to rehabilitate the alleged workers in the proposed project or to arrange for payment of any compensation. TIDCO took over the land from the Salt Department after lessees had surrendered their lease hold lands and had received compensation for such surrender. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contends that more than 106 boatmen were rehabilitated and taken under the employment by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not only the owners, but also any person who was eking out likelihood from the property thus acquired would be a person interested and entitled to be compensated in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the petitioners are aggrieved persons to receive compensation. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not only the owners, but also any person who was eking out likelihood from the property thus acquired would be a person interested and entitled to be compensated in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the petitioners are aggrieved persons to receive compensation. When the respondents had taken a decision to award compensation for the lessees, they should have also taken note of the plight of the workers who were rendered jobless as a result of the take over of the land. Learned counsel also took me through the correspondence between the authorities and contended that it would clearly establish their continued demand for rehabilitation of the displaced workers and accepted by the authorities on principle. Reference was also made to the minutes of the meeting convened on 19.11.1998 by the Executive Director of the TIDCO. 9. Learned counsel for each of the respondents however, submit that the original owner/lessor of the land was the Union Government and the assignment of the land has also been completed and taken over by various industrial establishments and that the TIDCO was functioning only as Nodal agency for distribution of the land taken by the beneficiary. As such no liability can be fixed on the TIDCO to rehabilitate the workers who allege to have been working under the lessees. Learned counsel further contends that the lessees have not been made as parties deliberately by the petitioners. It is further stated that the lands were taken over at a time when there was absolutely no activity of salt production and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were working under the lessees, cannot at all be sustained and the said claim is totally false. No liability can be fixed on the first respondent as the Salt Department is not the beneficiary. 10. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is not disputed that when the lands in question were taken over, the lessees have been paid a compensation of Rs.18,000/- per acre. Undoubtedly, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, any individual either a lessee or any other person incidentally utilizing the property thus acquired, would also be entitled to proportionate compensation. It is not disputed that when the lands in question were taken over, the lessees have been paid a compensation of Rs.18,000/- per acre. Undoubtedly, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, any individual either a lessee or any other person incidentally utilizing the property thus acquired, would also be entitled to proportionate compensation. In this case, though compensation has been paid for the erstwhile lessees at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre, admittedly, no provision was made to the workers under the lessees. It is not disputed that the lessees had engaged their own labourers. They were manufacturing salt in their area. It is true that before any compensation is given to them or any rehabilitation measures are taken, individuals who allege to have been working under the lessees have to be properly identified and the possibility of bogus claims cannot be overruled. The claims have to be properly scrutinised. But the claim of the workers either to be rehabilitated or to be compensated cannot be said to be unreasonable. 11. In fact, the authorities themselves were aware of their obligations having regard to some of the correspondence to which reference has been made. In their letter dated 13.6.1995 of the Government of India (the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Madras) to the Chief Engineer of the North Madras Thermal Power Project, the Chief Engineer has been requested to consider the claims of the salt labourers who have been rendered jobless and for rehabilitation at least on humanitarian grounds. 12. The Deputy Salt Commissioner has also written a letter to the District Collector of Chengalpattu District on 3.6.1997. In that letter the Collector has been informed that the Revenue Inspector, Minjur, had requested the Deputy Salt Commissioner to produce the details of the salt labourers who were working in Athipattu South and North Salt factories who had been rendered jobless after take over of the land. It is further stated that the details were obtained and furnished to the Revenue Inspector and although a period of two years have passed no reply was forthcoming and the salt labourers were often reminding the authorities on the said issue. The Collector was requested to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions on the request of the labourers. 13. The Collector was requested to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions on the request of the labourers. 13. Therefore, it is not as though the authorities are not aware of their obligations either to properly compensate or in the alternative to rehabilitate the workers by giving alternate and suitable employment. 14. On 19.11.1998 there was a meeting between the TIDCO, the Deputy Salt Commissioner and the Salt lessees in which discussions took place on the proposal to pay the lessees a compensation of Rs.18,000/- per acre. A perusal of the minutes also disclose that the lessees had reported that large number of workers were employed in various categories for salt production and as they would become jobless they would be required to be rehabilitated. After the discussion of the various issues, TIDCO had expressed that any issue for implementation of the displaced persons would not be possible by the TIDCO and that as various industries would be directly set up in the Petro Chemical Park, the said establishments could be asked to give preference to the local population/displaced salt pan persons in employment. Therefore, considering all the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents were fully aware of their obligations and now they cannot totally disown responsibility to rehabilitate the displaced workers. The TIDCO should have simultaneously monitored the request of the workers when they allotted the lands to various beneficiaries and should have imposed conditions on them to accommodate the displaced workers in employment. As this was not done, the petitioners have now approached this court for appropriate relief. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they cannot provide any employment or pay any compensation. Compensation has been paid only to the lessees. It is also not disputed that the lessees have not paid any compensation to the workers and that they have been left jobless. Therefore, the primary responsibility to ensure proper rehabilitation is on the TIDCO which had taken over the lands. TIDCO ought to have imposed the issue of rehabilitation as a precondition for allotment of the land to the various industrial establishments to whom the lands were allotted and to employ all the displaced workers. As stated earlier in the minutes of the meeting dated 19.11.1998 itself a decision was taken to negotiate with the industries to give preference to the displaced workers in providing employment. As stated earlier in the minutes of the meeting dated 19.11.1998 itself a decision was taken to negotiate with the industries to give preference to the displaced workers in providing employment. Therefore, the right of the workers to be rehabilitated cannot be disputed. 16. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure proper steps to identify the real workers who had actually worked under the lessees and to eliminate bogus claims. 17. In the result, I am inclined to pass the following order:- (i) The petitioner/Sangam is directed to file a proper representation with the second respondent giving full particulars of each of their members who are alleged to have been working as salt labourers with their lessees. The burden to establish the same is on the workers. (ii) The second respondent is directed to deal with the said representation, consider the materials to be placed before them in the context of each and every worker and to ascertain correctness or otherwise of the claim of each of them. Each individual worker has to produce proper materials to prove his employment with the lessee, failing which their claims cannot be entertained. They should have been working at the time when the land was actually taken over. (iii) After identifying genuineness of the claims of the individual workers, TIDCO is directed to take steps to rehabilitate the workers by giving appointment to them in a suitable post by interacting with the beneficiaries/Industrial establishments who have been assigned with the land. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation from the Sangam or the individual workers. 18. The writ petition is ordered accordingly subject to the above observations. No costs.