ORDER The issue involved in these cases is relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands situated in various villages at Sriperumbudur Town and Taluk, namely Pillaipakkam, Vengadu, Navalur and Irumbedu under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (for brevity, "Act 10 of 1999") for the Irunkattukottai Expansion Scheme Unit 4 and the challenge relates to the notifications issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 2. All the writ petitioners are owners of various plots comprised in various survey numbers in respect of which notices were issued under the provisions of Act 10 of 1999. 3. 1. W.P.No.10918 of 2008 relates to Plot No.21 comprised in Survey Nos.90/2B and 90/3 as per registered sale deed and Survey No.90/71 as per the notification to an extent of 2387 square feet at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District in respect of which notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 13. 2008 and notice as per Rule 9 and Section 4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in Form-E were issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District. 3. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the plot for putting up construction for his residential purpose and that the layout for residential purpose in the said survey numbers has already been approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning and the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Sriperumbudur. He was served with a notice in Form-E under Section 4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 directing to surrender possession of the said land within thirty days. Later he realized that the Government wanted to expand Irungattukottai Industrial Complex by SIPCOT and for that purpose acquisition proceedings have been initiated. 3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that no procedure contemplated under Act 10 of 1999 was followed, no notice under Section 3(2) was given, and no enquiry was conducted by giving notice to the owner as per Section 2(g) of Act 10 of 1999. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the procedure contemplated under Section 14 of Act 10 of 1999 for service of notice has not been followed and the enquiry was only an empty formality and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before the acquisition proceedings have been initiated. 4.1. W.P.No.26183 of 2008 relates to the land measuring 7200 sq.ft. 4.1. W.P.No.26183 of 2008 relates to the land measuring 7200 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.107 and 108/2, present Survey Nos.107/5 and 108/2C3, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and the petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act 10 of 1999 dated 10. 2007 by the District Collector, Kancheepuram and the consequential notice of the Special Tahsildar, Irunkattukottai Extension Scheme, dated 30.7.2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving the notice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 calling for objections within thirty days, the petitioner approached the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and submitted his objections, mainly to the effect that the land is a farm land forming part of a farm plot developed by M/s.Beauty Green Farms (P) Limited and that they are carrying on agricultural activities and therefore, the action of the respondents is against the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act, 2005 and hence, such lands cannot be allotted to private companies. 3. It is stated that the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has informed that a notice would be sent for enquiry and a further representation was sent on 13. 2008 by registered post and on 23. 2008 they received a letter stating that the objections have been sent to Special District Revenue Officer, SIPCOT and thereafter, a letter dated 30.7.2008 was received directing the petitioner to hand over possession and the challenge is on the ground that the mandatory procedure contemplated under Act 10 of 1999 has not been followed and that acquisition of farmlands is opposed to the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (Central Act 28 of 2005); that "industrial purpose" defined under Act 10 of 1999 relates to the industry to be established by the appropriate Government and not to be promoted by private individuals or companies; and that the District Collector is not competent to issue such notice and even otherwise, the notice is invalid since it violates Sections 25 and 15 of Act 10 of 1999. 5. Similarly, W.P.No.26436 of 2008 relates to the land measuring 6960 sq.ft. stated to be farmland comprised in Survey Nos.107 and 108/2, and now bearing Survey No.107/4, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The acquisition proceedings are questioned on the same grounds. 6. 1. 5. Similarly, W.P.No.26436 of 2008 relates to the land measuring 6960 sq.ft. stated to be farmland comprised in Survey Nos.107 and 108/2, and now bearing Survey No.107/4, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The acquisition proceedings are questioned on the same grounds. 6. 1. Likewise, W.P.No.17850 of 2009 relates to the lands comprised in Survey Nos.44/2A 44/2B, 44/3A, 44/3B, 44/3C, 44/4, 44/5, 44/6, 44/7A, 44/7B, 44/9A, 44/9B, 44/9C, 44/10, 44/11, 44/12, 44/13, 44/14, 45/1A, 45/1B, 45/1C, 45/2, 45/3, 45/4, 45/5, 45/6A, and 45/6B situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, wherein the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4. 2008 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner/Company has purchased the land for setting up its own industrial technology park. 6. 2. It is stated that the proposal of purchasing the land at Pillaipakkam Village was informed to the Government. It is also stated that at the time of purchase they learnt that there was some proposal and administrative sanction by the Government for acquisition of the lands in the said village for allotment by the SIPCOT for private industries, but no steps have been taken. It is stated that the petitioner/Company was made to understand that the Government would encourage private negotiations by industries and it was thereafter, the purchase was made and at that time when the District Revenue Officer has objected for registration, this Court has given direction in W.P.No.10909 of 2007, based on which the Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur has registered the document and it is the case of the petitioner that in the said writ petition Government as well as SIPCOT were parties and they have not raised any objection. 3. It is stated that after purchase of the property the petitioner/Company has developed the same and only thereafter the petitioner understood that notice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 was issued to the petitioners predecessor firm, M/s.Pandian Real Estate, Chennai to which the vendors of the petitioner/company were partners. It is also stated that the said notice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 was issued only to oblige big industrial houses and preliminary objections were submitted on 30.8.2007 to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and the petitioner was informed that the respondents will be proceeding further for issue of notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. The petitioner has challenged the notice under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in W.P.No.30221 of 2007 and pending the writ petition, the impugned notice under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 came to be published. Therefore, the said writ petition along with W.P.No.30221 of 2007 challenge the proceedings under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 issued in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4. 2008 on various grounds, including that "industrial purpose" denotes only the industry to be established by the Government and not by private parties; that after the lands are developed by spending huge amount it is not open to the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings which is violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India; that the proceedings are violative of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (Central Act 28 of 2005) and the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act, 2005; and that the administrative sanction issued by the Industries Department has not disclosed that the petitioners land has been notified as Special Economic Zone, apart from other grounds. 7. 1. W.P.No.17851 of 2009 relates to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in respect of lands comprised in 19/2A1, 19/2A2, 19/2B1, 19/2B2, 20/5B, 23/1, 23/2, 23/4, 23/6, 23/7A, 23/7B, 23/7C, 24/1, 24/2, 25/8, 25/9, 25/10, 25/12, 25/13, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/3A, 26/3B, 26/3C, 27/2, 27/3, 28/7, 28/9A and 28/9C situated at Pillaipakkam village Sriperumbudur Taluk and the challenge inter alia is on the same grounds as raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.17850 of 2009. 7. 2. Similar to that is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.17852 of 2009 which relates to the notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.91, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4. 2008 in respect of Survey Nos. 46/A2, 46/A3, 46A/4A, 46/A4B, 46A/5, 46A/6, 54A/1A, 54A/1B, 54A/1C, 54A/2A, 54A/2B, 54A/3A, 54A/3B, 54A/3C, 54A/3D, and 54A/3E situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. 7. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 are husband and wife. They challenge the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 46/A2, 46/A3, 46A/4A, 46/A4B, 46A/5, 46A/6, 54A/1A, 54A/1B, 54A/1C, 54A/2A, 54A/2B, 54A/3A, 54A/3B, 54A/3C, 54A/3D, and 54A/3E situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. 7. 3. The petitioners in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 are husband and wife. They challenge the notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 25/2A, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5, 26/6, 25/7, 27/1, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 28/5, 28/6A, 28/6C, 28/8A, 28/8B, 43/1, 43/2A to an extent of 29.30 Acres situated at Pillipakkam Village on the ground that the lands are agricultural lands used for cultivation and therefore, the acquisition is contrary to the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and the Tamil Nadu Special Economic Zones (Special Provisions) Act, 2005 and that the District Collector, Kancheepuram has no jurisdiction, apart from many other grounds. 8. 1. W.P.Nos.9348 and 9349 of 2008 challenge G.O.Ms.No.50, Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 3. 2008, notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and the consequential Form-E notice issued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) dated 20.3.2008 directing the petitioners to surrender possession. 8. 2. While W.P.No.9348 of 2008 relates to plot of an extent of 222 sq.mtrs. comprised in Survey No.34/23, W.P.No.9349 of 2008 relates to a plot of an extent of 164 sq.mtrs. comprised in Survey No.34/29. The challenge is on the grounds that no opportunity was given pursuant to the objections raised by the petitioners and therefore, there is a violation of the procedure contemplated under Act 10 of 1999, apart from the violation of principles of natural justice and no enquiry was conducted, no personal hearing was given and that the industrial purpose relates to the industry to be started by the Government and not by private individuals and that the house sites have been approved by the authority under the Town and Country Planning Act and therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdiction. 9. 1. W.P.No.12611 of 2008 also challenges the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.48, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 3. 2008 and the consequential Form-E notice dated 20.3.2008 relating to an extent of 10962 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A, 253/1B, 253/1C, 253/3, 253/8C of Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. W.P.Nos.13250, 13253, 13299 and 13302 of 2008 challenge the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 13. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A, 253/1B, 253/1C, 253/3, 253/8C of Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. W.P.Nos.13250, 13253, 13299 and 13302 of 2008 challenge the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.64, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 13. 2008 and the consequential notice issued in Form-E relating to 15.70 Cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.257/7E, 257/9C (as per Form-E notice S.No.257/1); 13.50 Cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.257/7F, 257/G1, 257/7G2, 257/7G3 and 257/9D (As per Form-E notice S.No.257/9D); 1. 18 Acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.257/7C, 251/3A, 257/7D3, 257/7D5, 257/7D6, 257/7D7 (As per Form-E notice S.No.257/1); and extent of 33.97 Cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.257/7B, 257/7E, 257/9B, 257/9C (As per Form-E notice S.No.257/1) respectively of Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District on the same grounds. 9. 3. Like W.P.No.12611 of 2008, W.P.Nos.13251, 13252, 13254, 13300, 13301, 13303, 13304, 13041 to 13043 and 16942 of 2008, also challenge the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in G.O.Ms.No.48, Industries Department (SIPCOT-LA), dated 3. 2008 and the consequential Form-E notice dated 20.3.2008 relating to an extent of 11047 sq.ft. comprised in S.Nos.253/1D, 253/1E, 253/6, 253/7, 253/9B, 253/9C (as per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B1F); an extent of 11712 sq.ft. comprised in S.Nos.253/1E, 253/7, 253/9B, 253/9D, 253/9E (as per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B1E); an extent of 9063 sq.ft. comprised in S.Nos.253/1D, 253/1E, 253/5, 253/6, 253/9A, 253/9B, 253/9C (As per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B5); an extent of 22.99 Cents and 23.58 Cents comprised in Survey Nos.251/3A, 257/7D6, 257/7D7, 251/3A (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/3A); an extent of 10225 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.251/2A, 251/2B5, 251/2B6 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/2A4); an extent of 9711 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/10B (As per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B1H); an extent of 10225 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.251/2A, 251/2B4, 251/2B5 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/2A3); an extent of 10574 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.251/2B6 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/2A1C); an extent of 10792 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A (As per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B4); an extent of 10742 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/3, 253/4, 253/8C, 253/9A (As per patta 253/1B1C); and an extent of 14179 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.251/3A, 251/3B and 253/3B2 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/3A) respectively, of Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 1. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/1D, 253/4, 253/5, 253/9A (As per Form-E notice S.No.253/1B4); an extent of 10742 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.253/1C, 253/3, 253/4, 253/8C, 253/9A (As per patta 253/1B1C); and an extent of 14179 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos.251/3A, 251/3B and 253/3B2 (As per Form-E notice S.No.251/3A) respectively, of Vengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 1. W.P.Nos.12677 to 12682 of 2008 relate to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and the consequential Form-E notice in respect of the vacant plots of the petitioners in Plot No.103, comprised in Survey No.90/5A as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/28 as per the notification to an extent of 2400 sq.ft.; Plot No.20, comprised in Survey Nos.90/2A, 90/3 and 90/6A as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/8 as per the notification to an extent of 2387 sq.ft.; Plot No.51, comprised in Survey Nos.90/2B and 90/4 as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/16 as per the notification to an extent of 2387 sq.ft.; Plot No.74, comprised in Survey No.90/5B2 as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/53 as per the notification to an extent of 2400 sq.ft.; Plot No.65, comprised in Survey Nos.90/5B2, 90/5B3 as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/54 as per the notification to an extent of 3000 sq.ft.; Plot No.38, comprised in Survey Nos.90/6B and 93/1B (New SF.No.90/24B and 93/37) as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/24 as per the notification to an extent of 1200 sq.ft.; and Plot No.38, comprised in Survey Nos.90/6B and 93/1B (New SF.No.90/24B and 93/37) as per registered sale deed and S.No.90/24 as per the notification to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. respectively, all situated in Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. W.P.No.21335 of 2008 relates to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 relating to Plot No.53, comprised in Survey No.90/4 as per the registered sale deed dated 2. 2007 and S.No.90/66 as per the notification to an extent of 1800 sq.ft., and W.P.No.20442 of 2008 relates Plot No.7, comprised in Survey Nos.90/1 and 90/6A as per the registered sale deed dated 22. 2007 and S.No.90/68 as per the notification to an extent of 2800 sq.ft. situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbur Taluk. 11. 2007 and S.No.90/66 as per the notification to an extent of 1800 sq.ft., and W.P.No.20442 of 2008 relates Plot No.7, comprised in Survey Nos.90/1 and 90/6A as per the registered sale deed dated 22. 2007 and S.No.90/68 as per the notification to an extent of 2800 sq.ft. situated at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbur Taluk. 11. W.P.No.18461 of 2008 challenges the Form A issued by the District Collector under Section 3 (2) of Act 10 of 1999 calling for objections relating to Survey No.33/2 and 33/7 to an extent of 2280 sq.ft. in Thirumoolar Nagar Eastern Extension Part-I, situated at No.158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk without finally adjudicating the claims of the petitioner pending before the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) on the same grounds raised in the other writ petitions. 12.W.P.Nos.20431 to 20433 of 2008 also relate to the notifications issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 in respect of the vacant plot in Dry S.F.Nos.39-2A1 – 0.16.5 Hectares, 39-2B – 0.11.5 Hectares, 40-2A – 1850 sq.mtrs., 40-2B – 1950 sq.mtrs. in G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries (SIPCOT LA), dated 4. 2008 and S.F.No.48-2C – 0.34.5 Hectares in G.O.Ms.No.91, Industries (SIPCOT LA), dated 4. 2008; vacant plot in S.F.No.39-2A2A – 0.64.0 Hectares; and vacant plot in S.F.No.39-2A2B – 0.11.5 Hectares respectively all situated in Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. 13. W.P.No.13549 of 2009 relates to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 dated 3. 2008 and the notice dated 27. 2008 issued by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) relating to Survey Nos.73/A-3 and 78/1B at Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumburu Taluk on the ground that the petitioner is carrying on Aluminium manufacture and the said objection has not been considered, apart from other grounds raised by the other writ petitioners. 11. Inthe counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram, it is stated that the Government, at the instance of SIPCOT, in order to capitalise on the booming economy and the interest shown by the industrialists and finding that there is no bulk space available in the existing industrial complex of SIPCOT accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.138, Industries Department, dated 11. 2006 to acquire private lands under Act 10 of 1999 in the following villages to the extent stated hereunder: S.No. Name of Village Patta Lands Total Wet Dry In Hectares 1 Pillaipakkam 35. 5 1656. 0 1791. 5 2 Vengadu 252. 0 681. 0 933. 0 3 Navalur - 29. 2006 to acquire private lands under Act 10 of 1999 in the following villages to the extent stated hereunder: S.No. Name of Village Patta Lands Total Wet Dry In Hectares 1 Pillaipakkam 35. 5 1656. 0 1791. 5 2 Vengadu 252. 0 681. 0 933. 0 3 Navalur - 29. 0 29. 0 4 Irumbedu - 697. 5 697. 5 Total 387. 5 3063. 5 3451. 0 14. 2. It is stated that for the purpose of convenience the acquisition was split up into various blocks consisting of five units each, with a Special Tahsildar. Under Act 10 of 1999, the District Collector is empowered to approve and issue public notice and also show cause notice to the land owners and other interested persons under Section 3(2) and accordingly, public notices were issued by the District Collector, Kancheepuram and were published in English and Tamil newspapers, apart from publication at Village Administrative Officers Office, Vengadu, Block Development Officers Office, Sriperumbudur, Sub Registrars Office, Sriperumbudur, Collectors Office, Kencheepuram, Revenue Divisional Officers Office, Kancheepuram on various dates in the year 2007. 14. 3. Besides public notices, it is stated that individual show cause notices were approved by the District Collector to land owners and interested persons directing to submit objections within thirty days and accordingly, notices under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 were sent to the petitioners. According to the respondents, they have issued notices under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in Form-A and Form-B to the petitioners; local publication/tom tom were effected; objections have been received from the petitioners, except in few cases where objections have not been filed; enquiry was conducted and notice under Section 4(2) of Act 10 of 1999 was issued directing the petitioners to hand over possession which is issued in Form-F in all the cases, except W.P.Nos.30221 and 30570 of 2007 and 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and it is stated that possession has not been handed over in respect of the said cases. The details furnished are as under: (TABLE) 14. 4. It is stated that most of the plots are vacant and most of the objections are that the said lands were purchased by way of investment and requested compensation at the rate of Rs.1 Lakh per cent. The details furnished are as under: (TABLE) 14. 4. It is stated that most of the plots are vacant and most of the objections are that the said lands were purchased by way of investment and requested compensation at the rate of Rs.1 Lakh per cent. Since the area was required for industrial development, the objections were overruled and in the enquiry conducted by the District Collector, the owners and representatives were heard and the proposal was forwarded to the Government along with the objections filed to enable the Government to take a decision under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and thereafter, the Government after considering the cause has approved the notice under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and the same was published in the government gazette and after publication of notification, the notified lands vest with the Government and only physical possession has to be taken. It is stated that the procedure enumerated under Act 10 of 1999 has been followed. .15. It is stated that the petitioners and other representatives have attended the personal enquiry held by the District Collector and objections raised by the land owners were heard and thereafter, the District Collector has forwarded the proposal to the Government for taking appropriate action in which there is no arbitrariness. It is also stated that the Government is taking all steps to protect the environment, greenery, etc. It is also denied that many trees are available in the said lands. It is stated that most of the petitioners have purchased the lands only recently after the administrative sanction was issued. It is denied that there is any colourable exercise of powers in the acquisition proceedings under Act 10 of 1999. The purpose of acquisition is expansion of the existing industrial complex of SIPCOT at Irungattukottai with an intention to develop speedy industrial growth and the same can be done by the Government as well as private entrepreneurs. It is denied that there is any colourable exercise of powers in the acquisition proceedings under Act 10 of 1999. The purpose of acquisition is expansion of the existing industrial complex of SIPCOT at Irungattukottai with an intention to develop speedy industrial growth and the same can be done by the Government as well as private entrepreneurs. The Government has delegated the powers to District Collector except those powers which are excluded under Section 23A of Act 10 of 1999 and in exercise of the powers the District Collector has heard objections and after hearing the objections, he has sent his proposals for a decision by the Government under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and therefore, according to the respondents, there is no arbitrariness and the procedure contemplated under the Act 10 of 1999 has been followed in full. 15. 1. The main contention raised on behalf of most of the petitioners, as submitted by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel, is that the acquisition proceedings are colourable exercise of the powers and against the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Act 10 of 1999. While it may be true that except the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 the other powers under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 are delegated to the District Collector, there must be materials to show that the District Collector has in fact considered the objections from the owners or other persons interested in such lands and such consideration shall be possible only if the District Collector has in fact conducted an enquiry and according to him, since there was no enquiry conducted on the individual owners and the persons interested in the lands, it is not possible for the District Collector to consider the cause shown by the owners or the persons interested so as to enable the Government to pass orders under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. He would correlate the provisions of Act 10 of 1999 with that of the National Highways Act. 15. 2. It is his submission that in the counter affidavit of the District Collector it is stated that the District Collector has considered the objections raised by the land owners in the enquiry on 110. He would correlate the provisions of Act 10 of 1999 with that of the National Highways Act. 15. 2. It is his submission that in the counter affidavit of the District Collector it is stated that the District Collector has considered the objections raised by the land owners in the enquiry on 110. 2007 and thereafter, the Government has passed orders and therefore, the order passed by the Government under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 should be taken as one passed without application of mind. It is also his case that it has been the objection of the owners as well as the persons interested that the lands are used for agricultural purpose and the authorities have failed to consider the public interest in preserving natural greenery. 15. 3. That apart, it is his submission that the acquisition is contrary to the terms "industrial estate" under Section 2(d) and "industrial purpose" under Section 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999. It is his further case that the petitioners have not been served with the report of the enquiry conducted and the acquisition would result in felling of thousands of trees and therefore, it should have been exempted from the acquisition proceedings in the interest of preserving nature, since that is also a public purpose. It is his case that insofar as it relates to W.P.No.12611 of 2008, the writ petitioner therein has grown mango grove in the vast area of 27 acres. 14. It is his contention that when the powers are delegated to the District Collector, which includes "considering the cause" under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, necessarily the District Collector has to pass orders under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and that can be possible only after hearing the objections. It is also his contention that once the District Collector passes order under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 the Government cannot go against the same. It is his case that passing of such order under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is mandatory, or else at least it must be shown in the file that the District Collector has considered the objections and forwarded the same to the Government. 16. It is his case that passing of such order under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is mandatory, or else at least it must be shown in the file that the District Collector has considered the objections and forwarded the same to the Government. 16. It is also the contention of the other counsel, especially Mr.N.Damodaran, who appears in some of the writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.12677 to 12682, 20442 and 21335 of 2008 that detailed objections have been filed by the petitioners therein who have purchased the lands comprised in various survey numbers in plots for the purpose of residential occupation as it is shown in the sketch submitted by him and that the objections have not been considered. 17. Mr.J.Saravana Vel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9348 and 9349 of 2008 would submit that while in the paper publications dated 17. 2007 the date of enquiry has been mentioned as 28. 2007 fixed by the District Collector, the Form-A notice under Section 3(2) of the Act dated 7. 2007 signed by the authority on 17. 2007 was received by the petitioners only on 27. 2007 and even though the petitioners have sent their objections dated 18. 2007 by speed post to respondents 2 and 3 therein on 18. 2007, which was received by the third respondent therein on 20.8.2007, viz., before the issuance of notifications under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999, which was on 3. 2008, the respondents have not taken note of the objections. 18. 1. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26183, 26436 of 2008, 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and 30221 and 30570 of 2007 would submit that the petitioners have purchased 48 Acres of land with an intention to set up an industrial park and he would submit that when the petitioners intend to utilise the said lands for industrial purpose, the impugned acquisition proceedings to give the said lands to some other entrepreneurs can only be a misnomer and is opposed to the basic tenet of Act 10 of 1999 itself. 18. 2. He would further submit that when the petitioners themselves intend to use the land for industrial purpose, unless the Government wants to use it for industrial purpose the acquisition would become bad and in this regard he would rely upon the decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001] 7 SCC 545. 18. 2. He would further submit that when the petitioners themselves intend to use the land for industrial purpose, unless the Government wants to use it for industrial purpose the acquisition would become bad and in this regard he would rely upon the decision in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001] 7 SCC 545. To substantiate his contention that the objections ought to be considered and the forming of opinion by the authorities should be in the form of record, he would rely upon the decision in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and another, [2008] 4 SCC 144. 18. 3. It is his contention that in any event the petitioners have made representations for allotment of alternative sites in Mathur Village for carrying on industrial activities. 19. 1. On the other hand, while producing the entire original records relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of these matters, it is the contention of the learned Advocate General that the administrative sanction was issued for the purpose of the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.138, Industries Department, dated 11. 2006. By virtue of the said Government Order, the Government while according administrative sanction for acquisition of 387. 5 Hectares of wet lands, 3063. 5 Hectares of dry lands and 1085. 0 Hectares of poramboke lands, has decided to use 4536. 0 Hectares of land as per the following details: S.No. Name of Village Patta Lands Poramboke lands Total Wet Dry 1 Navalur - 29. 0 - 29. 0 2 Pillaipakkam 35. 5 1656. 0 449. 0 2240. 5 3 Vengadu 252. 0 681. 0 369. 0 135.02.0 4 Irumbedu - 697. 5 20.67.0 864. 5 Total 387. 5 3063. 5 1085. 0 4536. 0 19. 2. It is his contention that as per Section 23-A of Act 10 of 1999, the Government has delegated powers to the District Collector, except the power to pass orders under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 to withdraw the acquisition and to frame Rules and in fact the District Collector based on the delegated power has conducted enquiry in which the petitioners have participated, especially the petitioners in W.P.No.30221 of 2007 where the enquiry was conducted on 9. 2007. 2007. It is his submission that in respect of the enquiry whether it is improper or not, the same has been decided in the earlier judgment relating to acquisition under the same Act, viz., Act 10 of 1999 in Oragadam Village, in M.Haridass and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others, [2008] 5 MLJ 1174. 19. 3. It is his submission that under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, the term "considering the cause" cannot be termed as passing a formal order as it may be required under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for want of such formal order the acquisition proceedings cannot be vitiated. Therefore, according to him, the term "considering the cause" does not mean to pass an order, since it is ultimately the Government by issuing notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 passes the order. He would rely upon the decision in M.Haridass and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others, referred supra, to support his contention. 19. 4. It is his submission that even if the District Collector on enquiry gives a negative recommendation, still the Government would have power under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 to issue notice of acquisition. It is his submission as per the records produced before this Court that there is substantial compliance of the procedure contemplated and reading anything more would mean following the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is not contemplated. 19. 5. He would defend the acquisition proceedings based on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in R.Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC 609 , since the Act under which the acquisition is sought to be done is a welfare measure. It is his submission that the District Collector has issued notice and heard the objections and there is no prejudice. 19. 6. It is his submission that the terms used in Section 2(d) and 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999 have already been dealt with in the judgment referred to above and there is no duty contemplated on the part of the District Collector to provide a copy of the report under the provisions of Act 10 of 1999. 19. 7. 6. It is his submission that the terms used in Section 2(d) and 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999 have already been dealt with in the judgment referred to above and there is no duty contemplated on the part of the District Collector to provide a copy of the report under the provisions of Act 10 of 1999. 19. 7. It is his further submission that the acquisition cannot be said to be against the ecological balance inasmuch as the larger public interest is to be considered and certain areas are required to be left open to sky for vegetation to preserve ecology. It is also stated that there is no question of felling of 4000 trees and most part of the lands are barren lands and they were all purchased recently after the administrative sanction was granted on 11. 2006. 20. I have considered the elaborate submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General, perused the records including the original files produced in respect of each of these cases and given my anxious thought to the issues involved in these batch of cases. 21. Broadly speaking, as submitted by the learned Advocate General, the writ petitions can be categorized into two sets, one set of writ petitions challenging the proceedings under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and other set of writ petitions which are filed later challenging the final notifications issued by the Government under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 22. The validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, which has come into effect from 39. 2001, was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in K.Ramakrishnan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Industries Department, [2007] 8 MLJ 1. 23. 1. When the earlier batch of writ petitions were filed under similar circumstances challenging the action initiated by the Government for acquisition by passing orders under Act 10 of 1999 for expansion of Oragadam Industrial Complex by SIPCOT, I had an occasion to consider the issue in detail in M.Haridass and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others, [2008] 5 MLJ 1174. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others, [2008] 5 MLJ 1174. Having considered the substantial issues raised in those writ petitions, I held that the principles contemplated which are applicable to the Central Act 1 of 1894 cannot be applied to Act 10 of 1999 and found on the facts and circumstances of those cases and on the totality of the situation that there has been a substantial compliance of service of notice and conduct of hearing and taking into consideration the larger interest of the State based on the object of Act 10 of 1999 dismissed the writ petitions. 23. 2. While referring to the terms "industrial area" under Section 2(c), "industrial estate" under Section 2(d) and "industrial purpose" under Section 2(e) of Act 10 of 1999, I have held in paragraph 54 of the said judgment as follows: "54. On the face of definition clause, it is clear that for the purpose of starting new industries or expansion of existing industries it is not necessary for the Government to declare or to build factories by itself." 23. Again, while construing the term "hearing" contemplated under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, it was held in that batch of cases that the term "hearing" cannot be equated to that of an enquiry provided under the Central Act 1 of 1894 and passing orders after hearing and considering objections. Referring to Rule 6 of Rules framed by the State Government under Act 10 of 1999 relating to hearing of objections, which is as follows: "Rule 6 : Hearing of objections by the Government - .(a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the Land, it shall by summarily rejected. .(b) If any objection are received from a person interested in the land, within the time prescribed in rule 3 or 4, the Government shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector or as well as to the department or company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Government, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Government, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. (c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Government, the Government shall hear the objector, or a person authorised by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land." the ambit of the said Rule was explained on comparison with the Central Act 1 of 1894 as follows: "But the said Rule 6 framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has to be construed only in the context of Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 taking into consideration the basic Object of the Act and it cannot be construed based on the object of the Central Act 1/1894. Therefore, the hearing of objections by owners or persons interested under the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 is to give opportunity to the owners and not for conducting an elaborate enquiry which certainly would not enable the Government for speedy acquisition of land for industrial purposes. Nevertheless, following of the basic principles of natural justice is to be read as forming part of any statute, of course, including Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 which can never be dispensed with but the nature of hearing contemplated under Act 10/1999 is different from the nature of enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Central Act 1/1894 and the Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed thereunder. Again a reference to Section 5-A (2) of the Central Act 1/1894 specifically mandates the District Collector to give the objectors an opportunity of being heard, while such stringent provisions is not available under Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999, even though the Rules framed under the said Act especially Rule 6, in pari materia is same as that of Rule 4 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Central Act 1/1894." 24. In the said batch cases, after considering the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the forwarding of objections of land owners to the requisitioning authority and obtaining answers to the objections, it was held that there is no provision under the Act or Rules mandating the Government to forward such answers to the objections before the date of hearing. Similarly, when the Collector on delegated power has heard and considered the cause as per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 by referring to the objections raised by the owners or the persons interested, in the absence of any provision under the Act or Rules made thereunder to submit a copy of such report to the owners or persons interested, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel that for non production of such report of enquiry, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 25. The Government, after realising the difficulties in publishing the notice and calling for the owners and persons interested to show cause and with an intention to entrust the same to a separate officer, has introduced Section 23-A of Act 10 of 1999, which is as follows, by the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes (Amendment) Act, 2005: "Section 23-A. Delegation of powers -The Government may, by notification, direct that all the powers under this Act except the powers, - .(1) to issue notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 3; .(2) to withdraw the land from acquisition under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4; and ( 3) to make rules under Section 25, shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercised by the Collector." Therefore, after the said amendment, except under the three circumstances stated therein, all other powers can be delegated to the officers and it is not in dispute on the facts and circumstances of the present case that the District Collector has been delegated with such powers by the Government and in fact by G.O.Ms.No.513, Revenue (LAI (1)), dated 9. 2005 such delegation has been effected, which is as follows: "REVENUE DEPARTMENT DELEGATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO DISTRICT COLLECTORS UNDER THE TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT, 1997 [G.O.Ms. 2005 such delegation has been effected, which is as follows: "REVENUE DEPARTMENT DELEGATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO DISTRICT COLLECTORS UNDER THE TAMIL NADU ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ACT, 1997 [G.O.Ms. No. 513, Revenue (LAI (1), 2nd September 2005.] No. II (2) / REV / 716 (d) 2005 - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23-A of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that all the powers exercisable by the Government under said Act except the powers excluded in the said Section 23-A shall be exercised by the Collector of the district concerned. (2) Thenotification hereby issued shall come into force on the 2nd of September, 2005. [Published in Part II - Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 2nd September 2005, Issue No. 199)." Hence, after such delegation, the issuance of public notice, calling for objections by way of show cause notice as contemplated under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and performing the functions as per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 are with the District Collector, who has in fact performed the said functions about which there is no dispute and that is also borne out by records. 26. As in the batch cases in which the above judgment was delivered, it is found that in all these cases also notices of hearing have been fixed by the District Collector and Form-A and Form-B have been served and for the enquiry fixed on the date stipulated the petitioners have appeared and objections were received. But the case of the petitioners is that their objections have not been either considered or taken note of by the District Collector since the enquiry was only a make belief drama as large number of persons were called on a day and there is absolutely no possibility for the District Collector to consider the cause by giving a proper hearing. Under similar circumstances, in the above reported case I have held as follows after referring to the original files therein: "81. It was considering the said response, the District Collector has requested the Government to issue notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. Under similar circumstances, in the above reported case I have held as follows after referring to the original files therein: "81. It was considering the said response, the District Collector has requested the Government to issue notification under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999. On the date of hearing, it is seen that the District Collector has considered the written objections given by the petitioners and others who have participated in the enquiry and also the declaration submitted by various owners for private negotiation accepting to deliver or surrender possession on receipt of compensation fixed by the Government." 24. 1. One another question that has to be decided in these batch of cases is as to whether under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999, by virtue of delegated powers, the District Collector who has conducted hearing and considered the cause should pass orders and whether on passing such orders the same have to be communicated to the owners or persons interested. 24. 2. A reading of the said Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 makes it very clear that passing of the order which is final is only with the Government under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 and therefore, the term "pass an order" relates to the power of the Government in passing orders under Section 3 (1) of Act 10 of 1999 and is not relating to the authority who hears and considers the cause on delegation of powers from the Government. Therefore, the contention that the District Collector being an authority delegated certain powers by the Government to hear and consider the cause should pass orders under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is a misnomer and is not in consonance with the actual provisions of Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999. 24. 3. What is contemplated under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 is that the District Collector on the delegated powers has to hear and consider the cause shown by the owners or the persons interested and there must be material available on record to show that the Collector has in fact heard and considered such objections and if such material is available, nothing more is required, for after such hearing and consideration by the Collector, the papers are sent to the Government for passing ultimate orders under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 24. 4. 24. 4. Inthe absence of any provision imposing an obligation on the part of the District Collector being the delegated authority or the Government for that matter to send the copies of the report of the enquiry to the owners or persons interested and considering the same in consonance with the basic object of Act 10 of 1999, it is not possible to accept the contention that either the enquiry report or order passed by the District Collector is to be communicated to the parties concerned. After the District Collector hears and considers the cause on delegated powers from the Government and reports to the Government under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999, it is the Government which has to make its opinion that the land is required for any industrial purpose to pass final orders by way of notification. 24. 5. Section 3 of Act 10 of 1999 is as follows: "Section 3. Power to acquire land:- (1) If, at any time, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for any industrial purposes, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required. .(2) Before publishing a notice under Sub-section (1), the Government shall, call upon the owner and any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land, to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed. .(3) The Government may pass an order under Sub-section (1) after hearing and considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or person interested." 26. A reading of Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999, gives a scope to the Government even to reject the papers submitted by the Collector after hearing and considering the cause as per Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 recommending that no acquisition should be done, thereby taking a different opinion in spite of such proposal of the District Collector. Of course, only in those circumstances it has to be examined as to whether the Government while taking different stand shall hear the parties again which does not arise in the present cases. Therefore, what is required is an opportunity to be heard and consideration of the cause as expressed by the owners or persons interested in respect of the land sought to be acquired under Act 10 of 1999 and that is the minimum requirement of natural justice as per the scope and ambit of the specialized Act 10 of 1999, as it was held in the said batch of cases that it is a substantial compliance of the requirements of Act 10 of 1999 that would suffice to hold the acquisition as valid. The said decision applies here also in respect of the nature of hearing and consideration of cause by the District Collector as it is seen in the files produced by the learned Advocate General. 25. 1. A reference to the original files relating to Pillaipakkam Village comprised in Unit I, Block VI to the extent of 32. 0 Hectares stated to be little more or less shows that Form-A and Form-B notice and publications were effected and objections were received from the petitioners except in respect of few of them and statements were obtained on the date of enquiry, viz., 211. 2007 and before that based on the objections the SIPCOT has submitted its opinion on 20.11.2007 categorizing the nature of objections and on considering the objections which are mainly relating to the conversion of lands into house sites decades ago and that the idea of the objectors was to use it for housing sites, the District Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.122/2007, dated 12. 2007 addressed to the Secretary to Government has, in fact after taking note of the objections, opined as follows: ".. Even though the lands have been converted as house sites a decade ago, there is little development and the purchase of plot is only as a means of investment. As the lands are acquired for a public purpose, the objection raised may be overruled and the acquisition may be proceeded with the publication of notice u/s. 3(1) of the Act." 22. As the lands are acquired for a public purpose, the objection raised may be overruled and the acquisition may be proceeded with the publication of notice u/s. 3(1) of the Act." 22. That apart, in the said detailed proposal, the District Collector has also arrived at the valuation and sent his proposal to the Government recommending a notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 enclosing the following documents, viz., "1 Land plan schedule 2 Block wise sketch and sketch showing the acquisition of land 3 Copy of the Administrative Sanction G.O. 4 Publication of 3(2) Notice Form A and B with schedule 5 Sub-Division records 6 The village accounts 7 Objection petitions statement 8 Enquiry records 9 Inspection report 10 Data land documents 11 Guideline value for acquisition and data lands 12 Village Administrative Office statement 13 Topo Sketch 14 Sketch showing data land and acquisition of lands 15 3(1) notification 16 Certificate received from Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms)" 25. 3. The above said files covered the lands which are subject matter of W.P.Nos.10918, 12677 to 12683, 20442 and 21335 of 2008. 25. 4. Likewise, in respect of another extent of 9.09.5 Hectares in Survey No.33/1A, etc., in Unit I, Block-I, Pillaipakkam Village, the subject matter of W.P.Nos.9348, 9349 and 18461 of 2008, apart from two other writ petitions, W.P.Nos.9780 and 13278 of 2008 which are not forming part of this batch cases, the District Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.79 of 2007, dated 312. 2007 addressed to the Secretary to the Government has given similar proposal after considering the objections and after referring to the remarks of the requisitioning body, namely SIPCOT, major objections having been regarding the claim of better compensation and others relating to the construction of house, since the lands were converted as house sites decades ago. 25. 5. In respect of the acquisition in Pillaipakkam Village in Block No.III, Unit-II covered in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 also the District Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.81 of 2007, dated 19. 2008 having noticed about the publication of Form-A and Form-B notices in the Business Standard (English Daily) and Daily Thanthi (Tamil Daily) on 8. 25. 5. In respect of the acquisition in Pillaipakkam Village in Block No.III, Unit-II covered in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 also the District Collector in his proceedings in R.C.No.81 of 2007, dated 19. 2008 having noticed about the publication of Form-A and Form-B notices in the Business Standard (English Daily) and Daily Thanthi (Tamil Daily) on 8. 2007 considered the objection of the owner in the enquiry conducted under Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 and has taken note of the remark by the requisitioning body, namely the SIPCOT stating that the petitioner in W.P.No.30570 of 2007 has not appeared but his counsel has attended enquiry, and sent the proposal to the Government to issue notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 25. 6. Similarly, inrespect of the other writ petitions relating to M.K.Multivision, etc., viz., W.P.Nos.30221 of 2007 and 17850 to 17852 of 2009 also the District Collector has taken note of the objections and has stated that the lands of the Company are lying vacant in the middle of the scheme area and are essentially required for public purpose and has given proposal for notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 after disposal of the writ petitions since there is an interim order passed by this Court as seen in the proceedings of the District Collector dated 21. 2008. In respect of W.P.No.30221 of 2007, the District Collector in R.C.No.66 of 2007, dated 21. 2008 has considered the objections and forwarded his proposal. 27. A perusal of the other original files in respect of all writ petitions relating to all the four villages, viz., Vengadu, Navalur, and Irumbedu, including the remaining extent of lands in Pillaipakkam Village also show that the District Collector has in fact by considering the objections sent his proposal to the Government for issuing notification under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999. 28. It is therefore clear that apart from the fact that the entire procedural requirements regarding the issue of notice, etc. 28. It is therefore clear that apart from the fact that the entire procedural requirements regarding the issue of notice, etc. have been complied with, the District Collector who has been delegated powers by the Government has in fact heard and considered the cause in the enquiry under Section 3 of Act 10 of 1999 and sent his proposal to the Government and I am not able to see any substantial irregularity or illegality in the entire process to enable this court to interfere with the acquisition proceedings under Act 10 of 1999. 21. The reliance placed on by Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26183, 26436 of 2008, 17850 to 17852 of 2009 and 30221 and 30570 of 2007, who are stated to have purchased the lands for the purpose of putting up an industry, on the decision of the Apex Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2001] 7 SCC 545 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with the Central Act 1 of 1894 and the nature of the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Central Act 1 of 1894. The present Act 10 of 1999 is distinct in its purport and aim. In addition to that, the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the State Government has accepted the request of some of the land owners for exclusion of their properties on the ground of developed residential colony, whereas on the facts and circumstances of the present case it is seen that the lands are barren lands. 22. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel has also relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and another, [2008] 4 SCC 144. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with the development plan under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. While construing the term "reason to believe" in the place of "is of opinion" while making modifications in the draft development plan and regulations, it was held as follows: "33. In that case, the Apex Court was dealing with the development plan under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. While construing the term "reason to believe" in the place of "is of opinion" while making modifications in the draft development plan and regulations, it was held as follows: "33. The Court is entitled to examine whether there has been any material available with the State Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the formation of opinion and whether they have any rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the opinion. The Court is entitled particularly, in the event, when the formation of the opinion is challenged to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is always open to the court to examine the question whether reasons for formation of opinion have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of such opinion and are not extraneous to the purposes of the statute." 26. 3. Applying the rationale of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case and this Court having examined the original records in respect of the entire acquisition from which it was found that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Act 10 of 1999, that the District Collector has conducted enquiry under Section 3(3) of Act 10 of 1999 and in fact, considered the cause in the hearing based on the objections of the land owners and the persons interested, and that the remarks of the SIPCOT, viz., the requisitioning authority, have been referred to, I am of the considered view that there is no statutory violation by the District Collector in considering the cause of the petitioners. 26. 4. A Full Bench of this Court in R.Pari v. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai, 2006 (4) CTC 609 , while considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 wherein under Section 4 and Rule 3 framed under the said Act, it is silent about holding of any enquiry by the District Collector or Authorised Officer but the District Collector is empowered to pass final orders, has held that in such circumstances the clause contemplates the Authorised Officer who conducts enquiry other than the Collector should make report to the District Collector containing his recommendations. The Full Bench has also taken note of the said provision to the effect that the provisions are silent about the submission of the report of the Authorised officer to the objectors. The Full Bench has also considered the Central Act 1 of 1894 wherein the power of eminent domain is with the appropriate Government and held as follows: "18. Under the State Act, the statutory provisions in the shape of Section 4 and Rule 3 are silent regarding holding of any enquiry (either by the District Collector or by the authorised officer). The statutory provisions merely contemplate issuance of notice to show cause and the Rules only contemplate issuance of notice in From I. However, such Form I specifically contemplates "the statement of objections, if any," received within the time stipulated will be enquired into "at a particular place" on "a particular date" at the office of "a particular officer", to be specified in such notice. The Form-I further contemplates that the person interested is at liberty to appear and to adduce any oral and documentary evidence in support of his objection. It is no doubt true that such a notice in the statutorily prescribed form can be considered as part of the Rules. However, the procedure to be followed by the authorised officer is not specifically laid down, save and except as contained in Section 4(3)(b). This clause only contemplates that the officer authorised shall make report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the District Collector. It further contemplates that the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit after considering such report. The provisions contained in the Act, the Rules or in Form-I do not specifically envisage as to which record will be placed before the District Collector. Similarly the provisions are silent as to whether the copy of report of the authorised officer is required to be furnished to the objectors. The principles of natural justice regarding furnishing of copy of report can be considered as super added to such provisions. It cannot be said that merely because the Form-I does not specifically prescribe any further opportunity, such opportunity is impliedly prescribed. The principles of natural justice regarding furnishing of copy of report can be considered as super added to such provisions. It cannot be said that merely because the Form-I does not specifically prescribe any further opportunity, such opportunity is impliedly prescribed. Since the Central Act had specifically and in detail made certain provisions, it is reasonable to conclude that the Central Act has exhaustively laid down the manner in which and the extent of principles of natural justice is required to be complied with and impliedly excluded any other extension of principles of natural justice; whereas under the State Act the statutory provisions and the Rules being silent, the scope and extent of natural justice to be followed need not be confined to whatever has been, described in the Form-I. 19. Under the Central Act, the power of eminent domain is with the appropriate Government, which obviously would mean an officer of very high rank and experience, whereas under the State Act it is with the Collector, who obviously is an officer of much inferior rank and less experience as compared to the Secretary to the Government. Since enormous power and responsibility have been vested with a comparatively less senior and less experienced officer, to lessen the possibility of any arbitrary and immature decision being taken, it is always desirable to strengthen the procedural safeguard by reading into the provisions, the principles of natural justice in the shape of at least giving an opportunity of making a further representation to the Collector on the recommendation/report of the authorised officer." 26. 5. Applying the ratio to the facts of the present case in respect of Act 10 of 1999 wherein also Section 3(3) has only enabled the District Collector as a delegated authority to hear and consider the cause shown by the owners or persons interested, it should only mean that the District Collector after considering the cause has to give his recommendation to the Government which is the authority under Section 3(1) of Act 10 of 1999 to pass the ultimate notification. Further, as the Full Bench has held that there is no provision for enabling the objector to receive the report of enquiry and therefore, the question of forwarding the report or proposal of the District Collector to the objector does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the present case also. 27. Further, as the Full Bench has held that there is no provision for enabling the objector to receive the report of enquiry and therefore, the question of forwarding the report or proposal of the District Collector to the objector does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the present case also. 27. Since in all these cases the notice required as per Section 3(2) of Act 10 of 1999 in Form-A and Form-B has been issued and the objections were called for and objections have been in fact considered by the District Collector, I am of the considered view that stretching of the statutory obligations beyond the limits would only be antithesis to the very object of Act 10 of 1999, which cannot be compared to the nature of enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Central Act 1 of 1894. Further, in respect of land acquisition relating to individual cases, when the object is not for the larger interest of the society, necessarily the power of eminent domain has to be restricted by imposing stringent obligation on the authority under law to conduct enquiry in proper manner by scrupulously following the procedure contemplated under the Act and the principles of natural justice to the fullest extent, but in cases like this where the larger interest of the State is involved, since the purpose is to have the industrial development developing the area as an industrial area, of course for the purpose of giving it to individual entrepreneurs at a later point of time, the question of considering in detail the objections of individual owners would only thwart the very object of the Act 10 of 1999 and consequently the better development of the State. 28. Further, it has to be stated that out of the large number of owners of various portions of the vast extent sought to be acquired, only a limited number of persons have raised objections, out of whom many have objected only in respect of the compensation which can always be worked out in the manner known to law and few of them like the writ petitioners alone have approached this Court. 29. 29. However, in some of the cases where large extent of lands have been purchased by some of the writ petitioners with an idea of putting up an industry, it cannot be said to be against the very purport of Act 10 of 1999 and in respect of those cases, while it is true that it is ultimately for the respondents to decide after formation of the industrial area to give it to individual entrepreneurs on the basis of merit, at the same time, it is incumbent on the Government to consider any legitimate claim made by such writ petitioners for allotment of alternate sites for establishing their industry and certainly such genuine claims by individual petitioners should be considered in proper perspective. Therefore, it is made clear that such cases may be considered by the Government taking note of the larger interest of the industrial development of the State, by providing alternate site in other place than the present place of acquisition to the individual petitioners, who genuinely seek to put up an industry. In view of the same it is always open to such of the petitioners as stated above to make proper representations to the State Government as well as the SIPCOT for providing alternate place, in which case it is for the Government to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. These writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.