K. Sabapathy v. The State, rep. by Secretary to Government
2010-08-31
K.VENKATARAMAN
body2010
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- The challenge before this Court in these writ petitions is pertaining to the notice under sub section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 published by Industries Department in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.383 dated 26.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent. 2. Since a common issue is raised in both the writ petitions, the factual matrix of the matter as put forth in the affidavit in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.2616 of 2009, is set out here under:- (a) The petitioner is the owner of the property situated in Naramangalam Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District in Survey Nos.155/1B, 155/2A1, 155/2A2, 155/2B, 155/7, 155/8, 155/9, 155/10, 160/3, 160/4, 160/5, 163/1A, 163/1B, 163/1C, 163/2A, 163/2C, 163/2D and 163/2B measuring an extent of 4.39.5 hectares (13.67 acres) along with one A. Simiyon Raja. (b) The second respondent issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 dated 16.4.2008 to acquire their lands and called upon them to submit their representation within 30 days. In the said notice, it is stated that the lands are needed for industrial purpose for establishing an industry for MRF Company. The petitioner objected for the same by submitting a representation dated 9.5.2008 along with joint owners pointing out that the notice is vague and further sought for certain particulars from the second respondent. However, neither reply was received by them nor the details sought for by them were furnished. However, by communication dated 28.5.2008, the second respondent forwarded a revised show cause notice dated 13.5.2008 indicating that the acquisition is for MRF Limited for setting up their expansion project. The petitioner along with the co-owner submitted his representation to the Collector on 9.6.2008. (c) A communication from the second respondent was received stating that MRF limited have informed that they proposed to set up an expansion project in Perambalur District and required 117.50.0 hectares for such purpose. It persuaded the land owners to part with about 109 hectares (270 acres) of dry land, but, however, they were unable to procure an extent of 16.64 acres of land. Hence, the MRF requested the Government for acquiring the lands in question for the project. However, the documents sought for by the petitioner were not provided to him.
It persuaded the land owners to part with about 109 hectares (270 acres) of dry land, but, however, they were unable to procure an extent of 16.64 acres of land. Hence, the MRF requested the Government for acquiring the lands in question for the project. However, the documents sought for by the petitioner were not provided to him. (d) Even without holding an enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioner, the second respondent posted for enquiry on 18.6.2008. The petitioner made a request for postponing the enquiry till the documents are furnished to him. On 17.6.2008, he submitted a petition under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Joint Secretary to Government, Public Information Officer, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, seeking copy of G.O.Ms.No.85 Industry dated 31.3.2008. (e) In the meanwhile, the Collector fixed the date of enquiry as 27.6.2008. Since the petitioner was not provided with the particulars asked for, he again submitted a petition under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish some documents. (f) The second respondent, without furnishing the documents sought for by the petitioner and without considering his request for postponing the enquiry, proceeded to hold the enquiry in a partial way and stated that the proceedings of the enquiry will be forwarded to the parties. However, he has not received any copy of the proceedings. (g) The petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16533 of 2008 for a mandamus directing the State Public Information Officer to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner in his application. On 17.10.2008, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the representation made by the learned Government Pleader that the required documents have been furnished to the petitioner. (h) Though the respondents did not reply to all the queries, the petitioner was waiting for the second respondent to call for further enquiry. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came across the publication in one of the issue of Dhimanani dated 1.11.2008 published by an Advocate on behalf of his client M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited stating that they have been appointed as irrevocable power of attorney agents for the lands published therein and they have the power to sell the lands.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner came across the publication in one of the issue of Dhimanani dated 1.11.2008 published by an Advocate on behalf of his client M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited stating that they have been appointed as irrevocable power of attorney agents for the lands published therein and they have the power to sell the lands. The lands so advertised in the Trichy Edition of Dhinamani dated 1.11.2008 comprise more than 600 acres adjacent to the already required 270 acres by the MRF limited through private negotiations. The petitioner was under the impression that since MRF limited has acquired more than 800 acres, they may not be requiring the lands proposed to be required. But, however, M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited who claims to be the agent of MRF limited approached him and declared that if the petitioner did not part with the lands for the rates as specified by them, he will be in trouble. One of the Board Members is the wife of a Central Minister hailing from the same District. (i) In the meantime, to clarify the order made in W.P.No.16533 of 2008, it was mentioned before this Court and this Court, on 26.11.2008, clarified that though the said writ petition was dismissed, that does not mean that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents can proceed further in this matter. The respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner before preceding further. While so, the petitioner received a notice dated 12.1.2009 issued under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) to surrender or deliver possession. Hence, the petitioner was obliged to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3. Common counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein the following facts have been set out:- (a) The writ petitions were filed challenging the notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Act after issuing notice under Section 4 (2) of the Act and hence, it has become infructuous. Hence, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. (b) MRF Limited is a public limited company who wanted to set up a project for manufacture of passenger and truck radial tyres in Tamil Nadu.
Hence, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. (b) MRF Limited is a public limited company who wanted to set up a project for manufacture of passenger and truck radial tyres in Tamil Nadu. They have informed the Government that they have negotiated with majority of the land owners, who have agreed to sell their lands, but it was not able to procure the balance of lands about 16.64 acres and hence approached the Government for acquisition of the lands. On the request of the company, a proposal was sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, by his letter dated 7.1.2008, accepted the proposal sent by the second respondent and forwarded the same to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.85 Industries Department dated 31.3.2008 granted administrative sanction for acquisition of the said land. Hence, the second respondent has caused a notice under Section 3(2) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his objection on 9.5.2008 and a reply was sent by letter dated 9.6.2008 by fixing the enquiry at 3.00 p.m. on 18.6.2008. The petitioner instead of appearing for the enquiry on 18.6.2008, requested for postponement of the enquiry. He has also sought for certain documents. Though the enquiry was conducted on 19.6.2008, it was adjourned to 27.6.2008 at the request of the petitioners. Again, the petitioners sought for certain documents by their letter dated 25.6.2008 and on 26.6.2008, they sought for postponement of the enquiry. On 27.6.2008, enquiry was conducted. While so, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16533 of 2008 to furnish the documents. Since the documents were already furnished, the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 17.10.2008. (c) The first respondent approved the proposal of the District Collector dated 4.7.2008 for the publication of the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. The notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 26.12.2008 itself. Subsequently, on 12.1.2009, a notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was issued. At that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 were filed to implead the MRF limited as third respondent in the writ petitions and the same were allowed by this Court. 5.
At that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 were filed to implead the MRF limited as third respondent in the writ petitions and the same were allowed by this Court. 5. The third respondent filed a common counter affidavit which contains the following facts:- (a) In order to set up a new factory at Perambalur, the third respondent required approximately 300 acres. It started negotiating with the land owners through third party real estate firms and identified/earmarked a near rectangular tract of land approximately 290 acres. When they were negotiating with the third parties, the petitioners at that point of time purchased the lands under acquisition from the then land owners knowing fully well that the company requires the lands and it lies in a key location. As the request made by this respondent to purchase the lands was refused, the third respondent requested the Government to acquire the lands in accordance with Act 10 of 1999. (b) The first respondent after careful consideration, passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 31.3.2008 accepting the proposal of the second respondent to acquire an extent of 16.64 acres of land. Thereafter, notice under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued to the land owners. A revised show cause notice was caused to the petitioners and reply was sent by the petitioners. The petitioners in the meanwhile sought for postponement of the enquiry fixed by the second respondent. They have also moved this Court by filing a writ petition alleging that certain particulars/documents were not furnished to them. On producing the same, the said writ petition was dismissed. (c) The Government of Tamil nadu and the respondents signed a memorandum of understanding based on mutual discussions. If the lands in question are not acquired, it will virtually affect the commitments made in the Memorandum of understanding. The delay in acquiring the lands would cause financial loss. (d) As per the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board norms, the third respondent has to keep sufficient vacant place in the factory premises. The Siruvachur Tamil nadu Electricity Board Sub Station is situated diagonally across the National Highways from the proposed site.
The delay in acquiring the lands would cause financial loss. (d) As per the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board norms, the third respondent has to keep sufficient vacant place in the factory premises. The Siruvachur Tamil nadu Electricity Board Sub Station is situated diagonally across the National Highways from the proposed site. As such, it shall be advantageous for the plant to bring in the 110 KVA Power line from the sub station into the plant and build the sub station in the lands to be acquired. (e) That part, the third respondent has also acquired 165 acres approximately through private negotiations to lay a Test Track for its Tyre Manufacturing unit for testing the tyres in the Karai Village. The test track proposed by the third respondent will attract all major vehicle manufacturers to come and test their vehicles in this Sate of Art facility. (f) The petitioners have misled the Court that the company has acquired 600 acres of land apart from the lands already acquired and as such, the company is not in need of the lands owned by the petitioner. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Reply affidavit and second reply affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein the following facts have been set out:- (a) The second respondent in his show cause notice dated 13.5.2008 received by the petitioner in W.P.No.2617 of 2009 on 2.6.2008 had asked the petitioner to reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of that notice. Hence, the respondents should have given atleast 30 days in between the notice and enquiry or atleast the respondents should have given the documents sought for by the petitioners before the enquiry. The second respondent has not properly conducted the enquiry under the Act and the same was conducted without giving proper opportunity to the petitioners. The second respondent has not communicated the proceedings dated 27.6.2008 so as to enable the petitioner to come to a conclusion whether the respondents have closed the enquiry on 27.6.2008 or not and the respondents have not also disclosed anything regarding the enquiry during the pendency of W.P.No.16533 of 2008.
The second respondent has not communicated the proceedings dated 27.6.2008 so as to enable the petitioner to come to a conclusion whether the respondents have closed the enquiry on 27.6.2008 or not and the respondents have not also disclosed anything regarding the enquiry during the pendency of W.P.No.16533 of 2008. (b) The respondents have not given a copy of M/s. MRD Ltd.’s Industry expansion plan / sketch and the site map duly authenticated by MRF and already submitted to Government or other Government authorities, but furnished a sketch of the lands proposed to be acquired by the M/s. Green House Promoters (P Ltd., a highly influential company hired by the third respondent to acquire the lands in the area. Respondents 1 and 2 did not have any other information as to why the lands under acquisition were required and why such lands are essential for the project except for the statement from the third respondent. (c) The third respondent who has started construction in the site already acquired by them had not produced any approved plan for the construction which only goes to show cause that their factory construction had already commenced and would come up even without the lands belonged to the petitioners. (d) Respondents 1 and 2 have not applied their mind in assessing the requirement or have not taken efforts to know why the third respondent having acquired 467 acres independently was to acquire the lands belonged to the petitioners. It also proved beyond doubt that there was no application of mind at any point of time by respondents 1 and 2 and they were acting as agents on behalf of the third respondent. 7. Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein the following facts have been set out:- (a) The petitioners in their affidavits have clearly mentioned that the third respondent which sought for the lands for their factory had already acquired to the tune of 270 acres prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings and after the 3(2) notice, the third respondent has further acquired lands to the tune of 600 acres apart from the lands already acquired and as such the company is not in need of the lands belonged to the petitioners and hence, the present acquisition is bad. 8. I have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petition Mr.
8. I have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petition Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Neelakand learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 9. The facts which are not disputed are that – (i) On 21.11.2007, the third respondent MRF limited requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to acquire the land of an extent of approximately 6.73 hectares/16.04 acres. (ii) On 18.12.2007, the Secretary to Government, the first respondent herein requested the second respondent, the District Collector, to send his remarks on the request of the company. (iii) On 27.12.2007, the District Collector requested the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, to get an administrative sanction from the Government to acquire the lands under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999). (iv) On 7.1.2008, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration recommended the proposal of the District Collector. (v) On 31.3.2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu granted administrative sanction for acquisition of land and further requested the District Collector to send draft 3 (1) Notification under the said Act to the Government, for approval in G.O.Ms.No.85 Industries Department. (vi) On 16.4.2008, notice under Section 3(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioners. (vii) On 22.4.2008, public notice dated 16.4.2008 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act was published in Daily Thanthi and Business Standard. (viii) On 23.4.2008, errata in the public notice was issued in the said newspapers. (ix) On 9.5.2008, an objection was submitted by the petitioners to the notice under Section 3(2) of the Act. (x) On 13.5.2008, revised public notice was issued under the said Act. (xi) On 28.5.2008, the District Collector sent a letter to the petitioners enclosing copy of the revised show cause notice dated 13.5.2008. (xii) On 9.6.2008, the Collector sent a reply to the petitioners’ objection by fixing a date for enquiry on 18.6.2008. (xiii) On 16.6.2008, at the request of the petitioners, the District Collector postponed the enquiry. (xiv) On 17.6.2008, the petitioners sought for certain documents under Right to Information Act from the Government. (xv) On 18.6.2008, the District Collector conducted the enquiry and thereafter at the request of the petitioners’ counsel adjourned the enquiry to 27.6.2008.
(xiii) On 16.6.2008, at the request of the petitioners, the District Collector postponed the enquiry. (xiv) On 17.6.2008, the petitioners sought for certain documents under Right to Information Act from the Government. (xv) On 18.6.2008, the District Collector conducted the enquiry and thereafter at the request of the petitioners’ counsel adjourned the enquiry to 27.6.2008. (xvi) On 25.6.2008, the petitioners submitted a petition under the Right to Information Act and sought for certain documents and clarifications. (xvii) On 26.6.2008, the petitioners requested the District Collector to postpone the enquiry. (xviii) On 27.6.2008, the District Collector completed the enquiry. (xix) On 4.7.2008, the District Collector sent a proposal to the Government of Tamil Nadu regarding the publication of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. (xx) On 8.7.2008, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16533 of 2008 for mandamus directing the respondents to furnish certain documents. (xxi) On 7.8.2008, the said writ petition was dismissed since the documents have been furnished to the petitioners. (xxii) On 26.11.2008, the said order was clarified. (xxiii) On 26.12.2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu approved the proposal sent by the District Collector for the publication of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act. (xxiv) On 26.12.2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu published a notification in the Gazette. (xxv) On 22.1.2009, the District Collector passed an order under Section 4(2) of the Act to surrender or deliver possession of the property. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners put forth the following contentions:- (a) The District Collector who has been delegated with the power of acquisition under the Act should have given an opportunity to the land owners before taking any decision on the acquisition. (b) The procedures contemplated under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act were not followed. (c) The Government before publishing notice under Section 3(1) of the Act ought to have seen whether the District Collector to whom powers were delegated, has applied his mind in recommending the lands to be acquired under the Act. (d) The information on the documents sought for by the petitioners should have been furnished/supplied and the enquiry without furnishing the same, amounts to predetermination of the issue in question.
(d) The information on the documents sought for by the petitioners should have been furnished/supplied and the enquiry without furnishing the same, amounts to predetermination of the issue in question. (e) Since the documents have been furnished subsequent to the filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.16533 of 2008, sufficient opportunity should have been given to the petitioners to put forth their case. (f) After notice, the company had acquired lands to the tune of 600 acres and hence, the company is not in need of the lands belonged to the petitioners. 11. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that all the procedures contemplated under the Act were faithfully followed and enough opportunity has been given to the petitioners to put forth their case. The lands in question are required for the project and exclusion of the lands is not possible. The petitioners were provided with all the documents/ particulars and they themselves have to be blamed for postponement of the enquiry, which was made at their instance. 12. Mr. R. Muthukumaraswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the company is the largest tyre manufacturers in India having Six factories located at Thiruvottiyur, Arakonam, Kottayam, Goa, Medak and Puducherry producing wide range of tyres. For expanding its operations in the State of Tamil Nadu, the company started negotiating with the land owners through third party real estate firms for acquisition of 290 acres. The petitioners’ lands are very necessary to carry out the negotiations to lay a Test Track for its tyre manufacturing units for testing the types. The subsequent acquisition of the lands shall not be understood to state that the lands of the petitioners are not required. The lands belonged to the petitioners are required to carry out the project. 13. While considering the submissions made in this regard, it has to be seen whether Section 3(1) notice caused under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (herein after called as the Act) dated 16.4.2008, to acquire the lands of the petitioners is justified and valid.
13. While considering the submissions made in this regard, it has to be seen whether Section 3(1) notice caused under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (herein after called as the Act) dated 16.4.2008, to acquire the lands of the petitioners is justified and valid. While it is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent does not require the lands belonged to the petitioners, it is the case of the respondents that the lands owned by the petitioners, which are notified in the Gazette, are absolutely necessary to carry out the project. 14. Before adverting to the said rival contentions, since many things have been stated against the District Collector, who has sent the proposal to the Government, it would be useful to extract the request made by the third respondent company to the Government on 21.11.2007, which is extracted hereunder:- “MRF LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’) is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is the largest tyre manufacturer in India having 6 factories located at Thiruvottiyur, Arakonam (in Tamil Nadu) Kottayam (in Kerala), Goa, Medak (In Andhra Pradesh) and Puducherry producing wide range of tyres from Scooter and Motor Cycle to passenger & Truck radials and very large OTR tyres and is also the largest exporter of tyres to around 65 countries from India. Our annual turnover for the year 2006-07 was above Rs.5000 Crores. The Company is in the process of setting up a Greenfield unit for passenger and Truck radials in Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as Project) with a total investment of about Rs.900 Crores over a period of 3 years. The said project will provide employment opportunities for approximately 1000 (direct)/2000 (indirect) people and will be a huge boost to the industrialization process in Tamil Nadu. In order to set up a new factory, we require vast extent of lands i.e., a minimum of 117.50 Hectares/ 290 Acres (approx) which we have identified in the villages of Naranamangalam and Karai, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. The company for the said purpose has entered into an agreement with M/s. Green House Promoters (Pvt.) limited, (a Chennai based private limited company engaged in the business of procurement and development of land) for procuring the above extent of land for the company.
The company for the said purpose has entered into an agreement with M/s. Green House Promoters (Pvt.) limited, (a Chennai based private limited company engaged in the business of procurement and development of land) for procuring the above extent of land for the company. We have been informed by M/s. Green House Promoters (Pvt.) limited that they have negotiated with majority of the land owners (approximately for 109 Hectares/ 270 Acres) who have agreed to sell their land but were not able to procure the dry lands in Naranamangalam Village fully described in Schedule 1 on account of various reasons and have further expressed their inability to procure the same. Since the Company needs the entire land to the extent of 117.50 Hectares/ 290 Acres (approx) contiguous in nature with such other requisite facilities nearby, the lands mentioned in Schedule 1 to an extent of approximately 6.73 Hectares/ 16.64 Acres is inevitable for the purposes of the Project and absence of the Schedule 1 lands may render the project useless forcing the company to scrap the project. The company seeks Government’s assistance/intervention for procurement of the Schedule 1 land for the project under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997. We would like to reiterate that if the said Schedule 1 land is not acquired by the Government for the industrial purchases of the company, it would cause great hardship to the company and it will not be in a position to establish the project, which will also be a huge blow to the speedy industrial growth of the State of Tamil Nadu. Based on the company’s submissions supra, the Government may kindly take necessary steps to acquire the Schedule 1 lands free of all encumbrances for the project/industrial purposes of the company. In the light of the above, the company hereby requests the Government of Tamil Nadu to pass necessary directions/ orders:- a. for acquiring land to an extent of approximately 6.73 Hectares/16.64 Acres as specified in Schedule 1 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997. b. to transfer/assign/handover vacant possession of the Schedule 1 lands so acquired to the company free of all encumbrance at such consideration fixed by the Government for the land.
b. to transfer/assign/handover vacant possession of the Schedule 1 lands so acquired to the company free of all encumbrance at such consideration fixed by the Government for the land. c. as deemed fit for affirmative action on the above.” The said letter indicates that in order to set up a new factory, approximately 290 acres were identified in the Village of Naranamangalam and Karai, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and private negotiations were made with majority of the land owners approximately for 270 acres, but the third parties, who have engaged for the purchase of the lands were not able to procure the dry lands in Naranamangalam village owned by the petitioners. Hence, it has requested the Government to acquire the lands belonged to the petitioners. 15. In the affidavits in support of the writ petitions, it has been stated that the state is coming to the aid of M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited after it had failed in its attempt to acquire the petitioners’ lands. It is further stated that M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited claimed to be the agent of MRF company approached the petitioners and since the petitioners have not responded, the Government was persuaded to acquire their lands. One of the Board Members of the said company is the wife of a Central Minister hailing from the same District. 16. To countenance the said arguments, the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that there was no suppression of fact by the third respondent company about the negotiation made by the M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited for purchase of the lands by the third respondent company. In this connection, the learned Advocate General submitted that as early as 21.11.2007, the third respondent while requesting the Government to acquire the lands owned by the petitioners, has clearly stated that M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited was negotiating with the majority of the land owners to sell their lands. Thus, according to the learned Advocate General, the agreement entered into between the third respondent and the said M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited was made known to the Government even at the inception and there was no suppression of fact. 17.
Thus, according to the learned Advocate General, the agreement entered into between the third respondent and the said M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited was made known to the Government even at the inception and there was no suppression of fact. 17. The fact that M/s Green House Promoters (P) Limited was negotiating with the third parties to sell their lands had been made known to the Government by MRF Limited while requesting the Government to acquire the lands owned by the petitioners. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the said fact was not suppressed by the third respondent before the Government. 18. The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the lands owned by the petitioners are absolutely necessary for carrying out the project or without acquisition of the said lands, the project can be proceeded with. When it is the case of the petitioners that the lands owned by them are not necessary for carrying out the project, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the lands owned by the petitioners are absolutely necessary. It is stated on the side of the respondents that the Siruvachur Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is situated diagonally across the National Highways and it is advantageous for the plant to bring in the 110 KVA power line from the Sub Station into plant and build the sub station in the lands to be acquired. Further, it is stated that if the said lands are not acquired, the applicable Floor Space Index would be reduced and the proposal of the third respondent to bring down the covered area of the plant would directly result in loss in the plant capacity affecting the project seriously. When such a stand is taken by the respondents, this Court cannot sit over the decision unless and otherwise a strong case is made out by the petitioners viz., the action of the respondents is mala fide and colourable exercise of power. To make out a case of mala fide against the respondents, no strong case was made out by the petitioners except stating that M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited claiming to be the agent of MRF company, approached the petitioners and threatened them to part with the lands and that one of the Board Members is the wife of a Central Minister hailing from the same District.
As I have stated already, why the said company is particular about the lands of the petitioners and what is the motive in acquiring the lands owned by the petitioners, is not made out. The allegation of mala fide has to be pleaded and established in a manner known to law. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not pleaded and established that the action of the respondents is tainted with mala fide. That apart, to show that the action of the respondents is colourable exercise of power, nothing has been pleaded and proved. As stated already, the fact that M/s. Green House Promoters (P) Limited was negotiating with the land owners, was made known by the third respondent even at the inception when it has written a letter to the Government on 21.11.2007 requesting the Government to acquire the lands owned by the petitioners. In the judgment reported in (2005) 8 SCC 760, Union of India and Others v. Ashok kumar and Others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office having high responsibility. The burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Para 21 of the said judgment is usefully extracted here under: “21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, if it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man’s mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order.
It is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab). It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proofs of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. Courts would be slow to draw dubious inference from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar)”. In view of the above reasons set out and in view of the decision referred to above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not established that there exists a mala fide in acquiring the lands belonged to them. 19. The next contention raised on the side of the petitioners is that even after the notification made under Section 3(1) of the Act, the third respondent company has purchased lands and hence, the lands owned by the petitioners which are sought to be acquired, are not needed by the third respondent. In para 8 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent, it has been clearly stated that the lands have been acquired through private negotiations to lay a Test Tract for its tyre manufacturing units for testing the tyres in the Karai Village of Perambalur District. The Test Track proposed by the third respondent will attract all major vehicle to come and test their vehicle in this State of Art facility. It is made known very clear that the lands which are acquired later to the notification are needed for laying Test Track for its tyre manufacturing unit, which is nothing to do with the proposed project. 20.
It is made known very clear that the lands which are acquired later to the notification are needed for laying Test Track for its tyre manufacturing unit, which is nothing to do with the proposed project. 20. Hence, the contention on the side of the petitioners that even after the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act the third respondent company has purchased lands and hence, the lands owned by the petitioners, which were sought to be acquired are not needed by the third respondent is liable to be rejected. 21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in (2003) 10 supreme Court Cases 626 – Pratibha Nema and others vs. State of M.P. and others. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment which was emphasised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is usefully extracted here under:- 40. Before parting with the case, we may advert to one more contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant which is really a facet of the argument on the question of public purpose. It is contended that such a vast extent of land is in fact not required by any reasonable standards and there was total non-application of mind as regards the extent of the land required. In reply to this, the learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to the layout plan and pointed out that it was only the basis of an assessment of the requirements, the extent of land to be acquired has been arrived at. Excepting oral assertions and bald averments, there is no material before us to reach the conclusion that the requirements were not properly assessed by the authorities concerned. It is primarily within the domain of the State Government to decide how much extent of land has to be acquired keeping in view the present and future needs.
Excepting oral assertions and bald averments, there is no material before us to reach the conclusion that the requirements were not properly assessed by the authorities concerned. It is primarily within the domain of the State Government to decide how much extent of land has to be acquired keeping in view the present and future needs. Though, we are not inclined to find fault with the notification on this ground, we would only like to observe that it is desirable that the State Government makes a fresh assessment in the light of the latest situation and exclude any part of the land which may be found to be in excess.” In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is primarily within the domain of the State Government to decide how much extent of land has to be acquired keeping in view the present and future needs. However, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that though they are not inclined to find fault with notification on the said ground, it is desirable that the State Government makes a fresh assessment in the light of the latest situation and exclude any part of the land which may be found to be in excess. The said observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court has to be read along with conclusion that has been arrived at by it and cannot be read isolatedly. That apart, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held that in the absence of any proof of prejudice to the challengers, the impugned notification cannot be struck down in exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction in matters where two views are possible. 21.1. The said decision was also relied on the by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners for the preposition that courts can entertain and interfere with the action of the State Government as against the provisions of the acquisition act if there is a colourable deviation in acquiring the land. 21.2. There cannot by any dispute with regard to the said preposition since though this Court cannot sit over the decision making powers of the authority, can sit over the decision so arrived at to find out whether it has been exercised properly and that it is not tainted with mala fide and a colourable exercise. 22.
21.2. There cannot by any dispute with regard to the said preposition since though this Court cannot sit over the decision making powers of the authority, can sit over the decision so arrived at to find out whether it has been exercised properly and that it is not tainted with mala fide and a colourable exercise. 22. The next judgment relied on by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 728-Divinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others. Citing the said decision, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court can interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the acquisition of lands of the petitioners is a colourable exercise of power. There cannot be second opinion on such proposition. But, in the case on hand, it has not been shown that acquisition of the petitioners’ lands is a colourable exercise of power. 23. Learned Advocate General appearing for official respondents contended that if there is any procedural violation which is not fundamental violation, it does not vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings. For that preposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 53-Girias Investment Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka and others. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on para 10 of the judgment reported in (1997) 1 SCC 134 -Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra. Paragraph 27 of the judgment is usefully extracted here under:- 27. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the request for a personal hearing was conditional, in that if a clarification or additional documents were required, time for that purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch as the fact that there was no need for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the access road or that alternative land was available for that purpose, had been spelt out therein. The collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for Bangalore Airport.
The collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for Bangalore Airport. We are also not unmindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra wherein it has been held as under: (SCC p. 140, para 10) 10. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226-indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the person interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say.
There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.” Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. 24. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that Act 10 of 1999 under which the lands belonged to the petitioner are sought to be acquired, does not contemplate an elaborate enquiry, which certainly would not enable the Government for speedy acquisition of land for industrial purposes. That apart, he has contended that the petitioners have not raised any substantial issue for quashing the acquisition proceedings. Nothing has been raised in the affidavit for fresh notice or hearing. He has also contended that unless and otherwise the petitioners show prejudice, this Court shall not interfere with the proceedings for acquisition of land for industrial purpose. In this connection, he has relied on the decision reported in (2008) 5 M.L.J. 1174 - M. Haridass and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai and others. Paragraphs 61 and 83, which were emphasized by the learned senior counsel are usefully extracted here under:- “61. It is true as contended by Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules framed by the Government of Tamil nadu in accordance with the power under Section 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) which is as follows: “Rule 4- (a) If a statement of objection is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof in Form ‘B’ to the objector 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 Collector, 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 Collector, the collector shall hear the objector, or a person authorized 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.” Is in pari materia the same as Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the state Government under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 which reads 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 be 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 authorized 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.” But the said Rule 6 framed under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 has to be construed only in the context of Tamil Nadu 10 of 1999 taking into consideration the basic object of the Act and it cannot be construed based on the object of the Central Act 1 of 1984. Therefore, the hearing of objections by owners or persons interested under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 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 of 1999 which can never be dispensed with but the nature of hearing contemplated under Act 10 of 1999 which can never be dispensed with but the nature of hearing contemplated under Act 10 of 1999 is different from the nature of enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Central Act 1 of 1984 and the Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed thereunder. Again a reference to section 5-A (2) of the Central Act 1 of 1984 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 of 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 of 1984.” “83.
Considering the contents of the files and also the admitted fact that notice under Form-A has been received but the only reasons given to question the same is that it was not signed by the District Collector, which for the reasons I have substantiated above, makes it clear that there is substantial compliance. On the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Form-A and Form-B are not in accordance with the Act has no basis and the contentions in this regard are liable to be rejected. Further, the hearing conducted by the District Collector cannot be said to be opposed to the principles of Natural Justice especially in the circumstances that out of the total extent of 395.87.5 heaters equivalent to 977.81 acres of land which include 891.61 acre of patta land and 86.20 acres of poromboke land, the lands of the 17 writ petitioners who challenge the acquisition proceedings covered only in respect of 14 acres alone and a reference to the sketch provided by the learned Advocate General makes it very clear that vast extent of lands acquired and the lands of the 17 petitioners which are forming part of small patches here and there and that the earlier writ petitions filed were withdrawn in view of the compensation offered by the Government and accepted by the land owners, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioners do not raise any substantial issue to be considered for the purpose of setting aside the acquisition proceedings.” As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent, for the acquisition of lands for industry purpose under which the lands owned by the petitioners are sought to be acquired, the Act does not contemplate an elaborate enquiry except an opportunity to the owners to put forth their objections. In the case on hand, notice has been given and the objections of the petitioners were received and considered by the official respondents. 25. It has to be seen that notice under the Act was sent to the petitioners calling for objections. The petitioners wanted certain documents. Again, notice for enquiry was caused. The petitioners again asked for postponement of enquiry on the ground that they needed the documents. Thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned.
25. It has to be seen that notice under the Act was sent to the petitioners calling for objections. The petitioners wanted certain documents. Again, notice for enquiry was caused. The petitioners again asked for postponement of enquiry on the ground that they needed the documents. Thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned. Thereafter, for the second time, the enquiry was postponed and again the petitioners sought for postponement of the enquiry and finally, on 27.6.2008, enquiry was held. In fact, the petitioners received all the required documents. After receiving the documents, they have not made any objection to the acquisition. That apart, even in the affidavits in support of the writ petitions, it has not been averred that the documents required by the petitioners will prove that the acquisition is bad. Thus, the above facts would indicate that enquiry was conducted after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. That apart, even if no notice was served on the petitioners, the petitioners should show how they were prejudiced on such failure. 26. That apart, section 3 of the said Act contemplates only a show cause notice to the owners of the land before publishing a notice under sub section (3) as to why the lands should not be acquired. The Government shall also issue public notice. It would be useful to extract 3 of the act and the same is extracted here under:- “3. Power to acquire land:- (1) If, 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.
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 the considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or person interested.” Thus, the Act contemplates only a notice before publication of Section 3 (1) notice and no further notice under the said Act. That apart, when once a notice under Section 3(1) is published, the lands vest with the Government. Section 4(1) of the said act is usefully extracted here under:- “4. Land acquired to vest in Government free from all encumbrance:- (1) When a notice under sub-section (1) of section 3 is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the Government free all encumbrances.” Rules 6 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Riles, 2001 contemplates that a date shall be fixed for enquiry and on the said date, the objection of the land owners or their authorized agents shall be heard. In the case on hand, such notice was caused and an enquiry was conducted. Hence, it cannot be heard to say that no procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules were followed. 27. It is to be further noted that the District Collector, Perambalur in his proceedings has requested the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai to get administrative sanction from the Government for acquiring the lands for the purpose of establishment of an industry by the MRF Limited. In this regard, the Government has passed an order in G.O.NO.85 Industries Department dated 31.3.2008. thus order made in the said government Order is usefully extracted here under:- “In the letter first read above, the Company Secretary, MRF Limited, informed that MRF Ltd. has proposed to set up an expansion project in Perambalur District at an estimated investment of Rs. 900 Crores and the company is in the process of acquiring about 290 acres of land in Naranamangalam and karai villages of Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District through private purchase to locate their project.
900 Crores and the company is in the process of acquiring about 290 acres of land in Naranamangalam and karai villages of Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District through private purchase to locate their project. It is stated that, while the company has been able to persuade the land owners to part with about 270 acres, they are unable to procure 16.64 Acres (or 6.74.0 hectares) of lands in Naranamangalam Village, which is inevitable for the purpose of the project. MRF Limited has therefore, requested the Government to acquire these lands under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and transfer the same to the company. 2. In the letter second read above, the District Collector, Perambalur has sent a proposal through Special Commission & Commissioner of Land Administration for according administrative sanction of the Government for acquisition of an extent of 16.64 acres (or 6.74.0 hectares) of patta dry land in S.No.155/1B etc. of Naranamangalam Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District in favour of MRF Ltd. the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Trichy has certified that the lands are not attracted by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. In his letter 3rd read above, the Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration has recommended the proposal of the District Collector, Perambalur District. 3. The Government, after careful consideration, have decided to accept the proposal of District Collector, Perambalur as recommended by Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration. Accordingly, the Government accord administrative sanction for acquisition of an extent of 16.64 Acres (or 6.74.0 hectares) of patta dry land in S.No.155/1B etc. Naranamangalam Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District morefully mentioned in the Annexure to this order under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 in favour of MRF Ltd., for an industrial purpose, i.e., for setting up their expansion project of MRF Ltd. 4. The District Collector, Perambalur is requested to take necessary further action and to send draft 3(1) notification under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 to Government for approval at the appropriate time.” Thus, the three authorities viz., the District Collector, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration and the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu have considered the request of the third respondent for acquisition of the lands for the purpose of establishing an industry. The conclusion arrived at by them cannot be doubted at all. 28.
The conclusion arrived at by them cannot be doubted at all. 28. For the foregoing discussions made above, I am of the considered view that there need be no interference by this Court relating to acquisition of the lands owned by the petitioners and the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the notification made for acquiring the lands owned by them. 29. In fine, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.