Judgment :- By consent of both sides the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in W.P.No.13093 of 2008 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the eviction proceedings after issuing notice of opportunity enabling the petitioner to raise objections, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.139, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated 11. 2006, passed by the first respondent in respect of the agricultural lands to an extent of 2 acres comprised in Survey No.49/1A/6B of Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpet District, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 3. In W.P.No.17307 of 2008, twelve petitioners pray to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in G.O.Ms.No.187 Industries (SIPCOTLA), dated 7. 2007, issued under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from proceeding any further pursuant to the said Government Order in respect of the petitioners agricultural land comprised in old Survey No.49/1A6B and New Survey No.172 situated at Alamelumangapuram, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 4. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions as could be seen from the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are as follows: .(a) Petitioners and their forefathers were held as bonded agricultural labourers by the landlords for several decades. Petitioners were given two acres of agricultural lands in Survey No.49/1A/6B of Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpet District, since the land owners voluntarily handed over their respective holdings of agricultural lands for the benefit of landless persons to an extent of 12.30 Hectares. .(b) According to the petitioners, they are the beneficiaries and obtained two acres of land under the Bhoodan Land Scheme from the 5th respondent, who granted the lands in the year 1959. The said claim is made by the petitioners on the basis of a letter issued by the second respondent dated 25. 1996, which directs the Additional Collector (Development and Project Officer), District Rural Development Agency, Kancheepuram, to arrange for distribution of the deeds in consultation with the 5th respondent. The said claim is made by the petitioners on the basis of a letter issued by the second respondent dated 25. 1996, which directs the Additional Collector (Development and Project Officer), District Rural Development Agency, Kancheepuram, to arrange for distribution of the deeds in consultation with the 5th respondent. (c) It is the case of the petitioners that all of a sudden, without giving any opportunity or serving any notice to the petitioners to vacate, the respondents initiated action to dispossess the petitioners by acquiring the said lands under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) for the expansion of the existing Industrial Complex. According to the petitioners, they are all landless agriculturists, belonging to the scheduled caste community. .(d) The grievance of the petitioners are that notices under section 3(2) of the Act was not served on the petitioners and the petitioners came to know about the acquisition when the respondents attempted to dispossess their lands by levelling the lands through the Government machineries. .(e) It is also averred in the affidavit that the respondents also failed to examine the factors such as ancestral agricultural properties of the landless Adi Dravidas; agricultural activity in progress; availability of nearby lakes and social reserve forest area; and report about the soil. Petitioners also contend that the notification issued is also illegal due to want of approval from the Board constituted in terms of sections 3 and 4 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Central Act 28 of 2005) and want of notification by the Central Government, declaring the area as Special Economic Zone, besides violations of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act, 2005 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2005). It is also alleged in the affidavit that without serving any notice under section 3(2) of the Act, final notification was issued under section 3(1) of the Act, 1997. 5. The District Collector, who is the second respondent in these writ petitions, filed counter affidavit stating as follows: .(i) By G.O.Ms.No.139 Industries (MIG-II) Department dated 11. 2006, the Government accorded administrative sanction for acquiring 360.97.5 hectares of patta lands and alienation of 390. 5. The District Collector, who is the second respondent in these writ petitions, filed counter affidavit stating as follows: .(i) By G.O.Ms.No.139 Industries (MIG-II) Department dated 11. 2006, the Government accorded administrative sanction for acquiring 360.97.5 hectares of patta lands and alienation of 390. 0 hectare of poromboke lands in Oragadam and Chennakuppam villages under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 for the expansion of the existing industrial complex. The petitioners are not owners and the Bhoodan Board is the owner of the said lands as per the revenue records and even today, the title stands in the name of the Bhoodan Board. .(ii) Pursuant to the above administrative sanction ordered by the Government, necessary proposals were forwarded by the Government to the Collector to acquire the lands. Thereafter, notices in Form A and Form B were issued under section 3(2) of the said Act to the owners and persons interested on 2. 2007. The notices in Form A were sent by registered post and Form B notices were affixed in the offices of the District Collector, Kancheepuram; Revenue Divisional Office, Kancheepuram; Taluk Office, Sriperumpudur; Police Station, Manimangalam; Sub-Registrars Office, Wallajabad; and Village Office, Oragadam, giving thirty (30) days time for submitting objections and the date of enquiry was also intimated as 20.3.2007. The public were also informed by beat of Tom-Tom on 2. 2007. (iii) The public hearing was conducted on 20.3.2007 by conducting enquiry and the objections were considered. The recommendations were forwarded to the Government, which were also accepted by the Government and notification under section 3(1) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 7. 2007, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazettee at page 32 of Part No.2, Section 2. Thereafter the notice in Form E under section 4(2) of the Act was issued to the owners to surrender possession of the lands and thereafter possession was taken on 9. 2007 and handed over to the SIPCOT on 9. 2007. .(iv) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after the lapse of one year of taking possession and handing over to the SIPCOT, these writ petitions have been filed. The reason stated for acquiring the said lands is that the respondents have established industrial complex/parks/growth centres at Gummidipoondi, Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur, Siruseri and Oragadam, all in close proximity to Chennai. The reason stated for acquiring the said lands is that the respondents have established industrial complex/parks/growth centres at Gummidipoondi, Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur, Siruseri and Oragadam, all in close proximity to Chennai. The extent varies from 1200 to 2400 acres, besides development of other industrial complexes. The entire allottable area in all the industrial complexes around Chennai has already been allotted and there is great demand of industrial land since Tamil Nadu is considered to be a preferred destination of large scale investments, particularly IT related industries and automobile sector. Therefore several industrial units and multinational companies have preferred to locate their industries in and around Chennai. (v) It is further stated that the acquired lands are developed into industrial plots by the respondents by forming roads, providing street lights, drainage system, sewerage system and water supply. The 4th respondent/SIPCOT only grants leasehold rights in respect of the plots allotted and retains the title of the land. The allottees are prevented from sub-leasing or alienating their leasehold right without the consent of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent collects the maintenance charges from the allottees to maintain the street light and other common facilities. The object is to create employment opportunity and to promote the economy of the State. .(vi) It is specifically denied in the counter affidavit that the lands covered in these writ petitions were allotted to the writ petitioners by the fifth respondent. The lands distributed to the representatives of the Vinobaji, before formation of the Bhoodan Board was approved and published in the Government Gazettee and Dhanapatra was also approved by the Board as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958. Accordingly an extent of 130. 0 hectares in S.No.172 (old S.No.49/1A6B) of Oragadam Village was acquired by the fifth respondent. The legal Dhanapatra was not issued to any person by the Bhoodan Board. (vii) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the representations received from the petitioners on 5. 2008 were forwarded to the first respondent for clarification and the 5th respondent by letters dated 15. 2008 and 15. 2008 informed that no Dhanapatra was issued to anyone in respect of the lands covered under the writ petitions and in the absence of distribution of the documents/Dhanapatra, the petitioners cannot claim any right of ownership over the subject lands. 2008 were forwarded to the first respondent for clarification and the 5th respondent by letters dated 15. 2008 and 15. 2008 informed that no Dhanapatra was issued to anyone in respect of the lands covered under the writ petitions and in the absence of distribution of the documents/Dhanapatra, the petitioners cannot claim any right of ownership over the subject lands. (viii) It is also stated that the letter of the District collector dated 23. 1996 relied on by the petitioners clearly establishes the fact that no distribution documents were issued. The Bhoodan Board is the registered owner as per the revenue records and notice in Form A under section 3(2) was issued to the Board and the Board also gave no objection to the acquisition. Petitioners also not being the owners of the lands, not to be treated as interested persons and they have also not objected the acquisition after the issuance of Form B notice under section 3(2) of the Act. The objections having not been made before the authorities, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the notification. .(ix) After receipt of the representation dated 13. 2008, notices were issued to attend the enquiry on 4. 2008 and the said notices were refused to be received by the petitioner. .(x) The contentions with regard to the applicability of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005; not obtained soil report, are all denied stating that the same are not required for acquisition of the subject matter of lands. The SIPCOT has allotted the lands to the entrepreneurs on 99 years of lease basis without parting the title of the lands. The alleged cultivation made by the petitioners are all denied in the counter affidavit stating that there is no irrigation facilities to do cultivation. 6. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. 7. The 5th respondent filed a separate counter affidavit by stating that the subject matter of the land was not allotted to anyone by the Bhoodan Board as per section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958, and the Bhoodan Board is the absolute owner of the property and on verification of the records, donations made have been notified and published in the State Gazettee dated 15. 1965 and in the District Gazettee dated 4. 1968 and no allotment has been notified. 1965 and in the District Gazettee dated 4. 1968 and no allotment has been notified. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that on inspection of the land it was revealed that the land is not fit for cultivation as there is no water facility and no boundaries. The contention of the petitioners that they cultivated the land in the past is also denied. 8. Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the letter of the District Collector dated 25. 1996 submitted that the lands are already allotted to the petitioners and they were cultivating the said lands. The learned counsel also emphasised that there is allotment made in favour of the petitioners and they are the actual owners of the lands and without issuing Form A notice to the petitioners, who are the real owners, the notification issued under section 3(1) is not valid. 9. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 4, 6 and 7 submitted that as per the revenue records, patta stands in the name of the Bhoodan Board and the Board, after receiving notice in Form A, gave its consent for acquiring the land and even assuming that the petitioners were in possession of the land, Form B notice was also already displayed in the public offices, apart from making beat by tom-tom on 2. 2007 and that the petitioners have not objected the acquisition during the enquiry held on 20.3.2007. According to the learned Advocate General, the said fact clearly reveals that the petitioners are not in enjoyment of the land at all and as such they are also not interested persons. He also submitted that even assuming that the petitioners are having any interest in the acquired lands, the acquisition having become final by taking possession as early as on 9. 2007 and the lands having been handed over to the SIPCOT on 9. 2007, the petitioners can only claim compensation and the right of the petitioners can be established before the Civil Court and in that event, the official respondents are willing to deposit the compensation amount in the Civil Court as contemplated under section 10(3) of the Act. 10. 2007 and the lands having been handed over to the SIPCOT on 9. 2007, the petitioners can only claim compensation and the right of the petitioners can be established before the Civil Court and in that event, the official respondents are willing to deposit the compensation amount in the Civil Court as contemplated under section 10(3) of the Act. 10. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submitted that the Bhoodan Board is the owner of the subject matter of the land; patta stands in the name of the Board; no Dhanapatra was executed in favour of the petitioners at any point of time; the ownership having vested with the Bhoodan Board its consent was also obtained; and that the petitioners have no right to file these writ petitions. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 4, 6 and 7, and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. 12. The petitioners are claiming right over the land on the basis of the letter issued by the District Collector dated 25. 1996, wherein it is stated that the petitioners are cultivating two acres of land each. The Project Officer, Chengalpet District at Kancheepuram, was requested to arrange for the issue of land distribution deeds by consulting the Special Officer-cum-Director of Rural Development, in respect of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Board lands. The said letter shows only a direction to give allotment of lands to the petitioners. Subsequent letters issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, dated 2. 2000 gives direction to enquire into the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the petitioners were directed to appear for enquiry on 19. 2000 at 11.00 a.m. No allotment order was passed or issued in favour of the petitioners according to the respondents, including the Bhoodan Board/5th respondent herein, who is the authority to allot the lands under the Act. 13. The petitioners alleged cultivation of the above said lands are also in dispute. The respondents are contending that there is no facility to irrigate the lands and the petitioners never irrigated the lands as they were not allottees. 14. Admittedly the said lands were ordered to be acquired by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.139 Industries Department, dated 11. 2006. 13. The petitioners alleged cultivation of the above said lands are also in dispute. The respondents are contending that there is no facility to irrigate the lands and the petitioners never irrigated the lands as they were not allottees. 14. Admittedly the said lands were ordered to be acquired by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.139 Industries Department, dated 11. 2006. Acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 for expansion of the existing industrial complex. The very same Government Order was challenged by the individual land owners, in batch of writ petitions, which was upheld by this Court and the same is reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1174 (M.Haridass v. State of Tamil Nadu). 15. Insofar as notices in Form A and B under section 3(2) of the Act are concerned, notices were issued to the owners and person interested on 2. 2007. Notices in Form A was sent by registered post to the owners and Form B notices were affixed in the offices viz., the District Collectors office, Revenue Divisional Office, Taluk Office, Police Station, Sub-Registrar Office and Village office, giving 30 days time to submit objections. Enquiry date was also stated as 20.3.2007 in the notices. Beat of tom-tom was made in the locality on 2. 2007. Admittedly petitioners have not raised any objection or appeared in the enquiry and objected the acquisition of lands. The patta of the lands as well as the adangal of the said lands are in the name of the Bhoodan Board. 16. Whether notice is bound to be issued to a person, whose name is not found in the revenue record while acquiring the land, was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 5 SCC 365 : AIR 2005 SC 3519 (Ahuja Industries Ltd., v. State of Karnataka) and in paragraph 13, it is held as follows: "13. It could be seen from the above order that service of notice on a person shown as owner or occupier in the record-of-rights is sufficient even though the said person had already sold the land prior to the said notification unless it is substantiated otherwise that the authorities concerned had knowledge of the rights or interest of any person other than those found recorded as owner/occupier in the revenue records. It is further held that the Collector is not obliged to make a roving enquiry about the ownership of the land. If the name of the purchaser is not yet entered in the record-of-rights then non-service on such a person does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name entered in the revenue records as owner or occupant of the said land and therefore he could not complain about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to grant a hearing to him. Contention that as per provision of the Land Revenue Act there was no obligation on his part to either inform the Revenue Authorities about the sale in his favour or to request them to transfer the katha in his name cannot stand as it has not been brought on record with reference to any pleadings with supporting documents that in fact the appellant had made payment for making the necessary entries in the record-of-rights and the register in his name at the time of registration of the sale deed in his favour. This apart, failure to make entries on the part of the Revenue Authorities by itself would not cast any obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and try to locate an owner who may have subsequently purchased the land from the previous owner. Failure on the part of the Revenue Authority to make entry in the register of mutation in favour of the subsequent owner would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof." 17. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners having not been given allotment of the lands, the claim of the petitioners that they are in possession and therefore they should be given notice under Form A, cannot be countenanced. Further, the petitioners have not responded pursuant to the public notice issued in Form B on 2. 2007. 18. The land owner viz., the Bhoodan Board having given its consent, the lands were acquired and possession was also taken as early as on 9. 2007 and the same was handed over to the SIPCOT on 9. 2007. Therefore, at this stage petitioners cannot object the acquisition proceeding on any ground. 19. 2007. 18. The land owner viz., the Bhoodan Board having given its consent, the lands were acquired and possession was also taken as early as on 9. 2007 and the same was handed over to the SIPCOT on 9. 2007. Therefore, at this stage petitioners cannot object the acquisition proceeding on any ground. 19. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, if the petitioners have got any right over the lands, they can establish their right only before the Civil Court and if they establish their right, they can claim compensation amount, which the respondents undertake to deposit. Section 9(2) of the Act provides that when an amount has been determined under section 7 towards compensation if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons whom or as any part thereof, the Collector may refer the dispute for the decision of the Court. In the additional affidavit filed by the second respondent dated 11. 2008 in paragraph 4 it is stated as follows: "It is submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings have been completed and the vesting of the land has taken place with the Government, the possession was taken on 9. 2007 and only the compensation arrived at has to be paid. In view of the disputed question as to the right and entitlement of the compensation in respect of the lands between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, this respondent undertakes to deposit the amount payable as compensation in respect of the said lands, in the court as contemplated under section 10(3) of the T.N. Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act." The undertaking given as above by the second respondent is hereby recorded and the petitioners are given liberty to establish their claim before the Civil Court relating to compensation and in all other respects, the acquisition proceeding are found valid. 20. The writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their claim for compensation once the second respondent refer the dispute for the decision of the Court. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.