Judgment :- 1. The matter is listed today under the caption "Specially Ordered Cases" 2. Heard Mr.Udaya Banu, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.Arun Kumar, counsel for the petitioners, Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (In short SIPCOT). 3. These five writ petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the acquisition of their lands situated at various survey numbers at Mathur Village Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannmalai District by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 for the purpose of establishing SIPCOT extension scheme at Cheyyar Taluk. 4. In the writ petitions, notice of motion was ordered and interim stay of dispossession alone was granted on 27.09.2010. Subsequently, the fourth respondent SIPCOT, which is a requisitioning body, got itself impleaded by filing applications in all the above writ petitions as fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the interim order, the State Government filed M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim stay obtained by them. All those applications were considered on 29.09.2011 and they were allowed and consequently, M.P.Nos.2 to 2 of 2010 and 3 to 3 of 2010 for interim stay and direction, respectively were dismissed. 5. The first two writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner R,.Kamalaveni and the third writ petition was filed by Minor Yamuna represented by her mother and natural guardian R.Kamalaveni and the fourth and fifth petitions were filed by the land owners in S.Nos.181/2,182/4A2 and 183/1 in No.134 and 182/4A1 in No.134 Mathur Village,Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannmalai District. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are owners and are in possession of lands in various Survey numbers and they were not dispossessed till date. The petitioner in W.P.No.21340 and 21341 of 2010 claimed that she has got three children and one is married and other two are not married and third one is minor. She is getting income out of the cultivation from the said lands and the income derived from the lands are used for children's education. When the petitioner received notice from the second respondent District Collector, Tiruvannmalai dated 13.02.2009, she submitted a reply dated 09.03.2009 and 10.03.2009 objecting to the said acquisition. She is getting income out of the cultivation from the said lands and the income derived from the lands are used for children's education. When the petitioner received notice from the second respondent District Collector, Tiruvannmalai dated 13.02.2009, she submitted a reply dated 09.03.2009 and 10.03.2009 objecting to the said acquisition. However notwithstanding her objection, the State Government issued notification and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte dated 13.07.2010. The notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil nadu Act 10 of 1999) the land to the extent of 3.04.45 Hectares for the purpose of Cheyyar Industrial Expansion Scheme by SIPCOT. The plan of the land kept in the office of the Special Tahsildar, viz., the third respondent and it was allowed to be inspected by any interested person. The land acquired covers several extent of lands in several villages. Subsequent to the notification, a final notification was issued under Rule 9 in Form E in terms of Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the lands within thirty days, as per the publication. After notice was issued, the petitioner sent a further letter dated 20.08.1910 stating that she is cultivating the lands all these times, since rain favours her. She also wrote a letter dated 02.09.2010 to the fourth respondent SIPCOT asking for certain information to defend her case. When there was no reply, the above writ petitions came to be filed. 7. The principal contention raised by the petitioners were three fold. The first one was that she was depending upon the said lands for cultivation for survival and the second one was that the policy decision of the State Government is not to acquire the agricultural lands for any industrial purpose and the third one was that in case of land owned by the members belonging to scheduled caste, the Government should not resort to acquisition proceedings of those lands. 8. In support of the second contention, reliance was placed upon the Government letter dated 11.03.1984, Revenue Department, wherein the State Government had given such guideline in respect of acquired land, in which, cultivation is carried on and all the District Collectors were directed to follow such guidelines and avoid acquiring lands, so that food produce may not get reduced. 8. In support of the second contention, reliance was placed upon the Government letter dated 11.03.1984, Revenue Department, wherein the State Government had given such guideline in respect of acquired land, in which, cultivation is carried on and all the District Collectors were directed to follow such guidelines and avoid acquiring lands, so that food produce may not get reduced. It was also stated in the guidelines that wherever irrigation facility is available, then 'punja' lands must be considered as 'nanja' lands. In respect of third contention, reliance was placed upon G.O.Ms.No.2078, Revenue Department dated 27.12.1984 wherein it is stated that for public purpose, the lands belonging to Adi Dravidar and the poor people having small holdings of land should not be acquired and only due to unavoidable circumstances, such an acquisition can be made. The acquisition authorities were directed to keep these guidelines in mind. 9. In response to these allegations, a counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector, the second respondent herein, wherein it is stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.21340 and 21341 of 2010 was depending upon the lands for survival and she has to support her daughters out of the income derived from the lands was denied. It was stated that the first petitioner's husband is a well placed Officer working in the Central Excise Department in Hyderabad and the family is not depending upon the income derived from the said lands. It is stated that there was no cultivation carried out in those lands, the adangal extract issued for five years showed that there was no cultivation done in the said lands and therefore the allegation that from out of the income of the land, the children are educated, was not true. 10. With reference to the third contention that the lands owned by the members belonging to scheduled caste can be avoided, because there are other lands are available, in the counter, it is stated that the petitioner lands are coming in the middle of the scheme and therefore the question of leaving out the lands of the petitioner does not arise, as it was a Committee formulated the scheme by providing land, which is coming in the middle of the scheme. The scheme itself cannot be executed, if such an exemption was given. In the counter affidavit, a strong exception was taken to the statement made by the petitioner. The scheme itself cannot be executed, if such an exemption was given. In the counter affidavit, a strong exception was taken to the statement made by the petitioner. With reference to the reliance placed upon the Government order relating to G.O.Ms.No.2078 Revenue Department dated 27.12.1984 and G.O.Ms.No.257, Revenue Department dated 15.02.1983, it was stated that there is no blanket ban on the Acquiring Authority to acquire the lands. Even assuming if the lands are shown as Punja, her claim that it was irrigated by pump set was false and it is contrary to the revenue records and it is continued to be dry lands and there is no cultivation going on for the past several faslis, prior to the acquisition. It is also the policy decision of the State Government. After careful consideration of the said acquisition, the expansion of SIPCOT project was also annexed in the Floor of the Legislative Assembly and it was widely discussed and analysed from the point of the said policy decision. 11. In the counter affidavit filed, in support of the impleading application, the fourth respondent SIPCOT, took an identical stand as that of the second respondent. It was once again reiterated that the lands are coming under the middle of the scheme and therefore the question of acquiring some other lands for the purpose of the said scheme, may not arise. With reference to the publicity given in respect of acquisition given, it is stated that objections were called for on 10.02.2009 from the land owners and wide publicity was given both local sources as well as in the Newspapers and notification under Section 3(2) of the Act was effected by the second respondent, after considering the objections and final verification made on 5.10.2009 and 6.10.2009, the second respondent issued the notification. If any exemption is granted in respect of the petitioner's land it will cause unnecessary damage to the scheme framed by the SIPCOT. 12. On the question of observance of principles of natural justice, Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in R.PariVs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 and submit that it is necessary to refer Paragraphs 37 to 39 which read as follows: "37. On the question of observance of principles of natural justice, Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in R.PariVs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakkottai reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 and submit that it is necessary to refer Paragraphs 37 to 39 which read as follows: "37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the land owner to make a further representation to the District Collector does not mean that in every case, where such report has not been furnished, the ultimate order passed by the District Collector deciding to acquire the land is automatically vitiated. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the Court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the report and affording further opportunity to the land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the authorised officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the authorised officer, the land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the authorised officer has considered the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendation, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished and no further opportunity is given to the land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner, have been ignored by the authorised officer, it may be reasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately, the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case. 38. So far as Question No.2 is concerned, since it is construed by us that it is necessary for the Collector to give opportunity to the owner to file further representation on the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer, such copy of the report/recommendation is required to be furnished. We also add that in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 the owner would be entitled to copy of the report of the authorised officer. 39.It was submitted on behalf of the State Government that since specific provisions had been made in Section 4 and Rule 3 and particularly in Form I, it would not be appropriate to incorporate any other principle of natural justice." 13. In the light of the above, no case is made out to entertain the above writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.