Jegatha Madhubala v. Secretary to Government, Industries Department
2018-02-12
K.K.SASIDHARAN, P.VELMURUGAN
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1977 on the ground that the Competent Authority without application of mind acquired a granite quarry earning substantial foreign exchange. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge taking into account the response given by the requisitioning department to the District Collector with regard to the factual position and ground reality. The order is under challenge in this intra court appeals. Brief facts:- 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu has recorded administrative sanction for acquisition of 716.88.5 Hectares of land in Mathur Village, Thiruvannamalai District. The District Collector conducted enquiry after publication of notification under Section 3(2) of the Act. The appellants in their objection submitted that they have been doing quarrying business and it was temporarily stopped. Due to quarrying operations, big pits were formed and as such, the land is not fit for establishing industry. The objection was overruled by the District Collector. The Government thereafter issued the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. 3. The appellants challenged the notification before the writ court. The appellants have contended that the land was wrongly classified as water logged area and that a jet black granite of export quality is available there. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Government acquired a granite quarry for industrial purpose. Since the appellants were running a granite business using the quarry, it was not correct to acquire the land for another industrial purpose. No other point was argued before us. 5. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Discussion:- 6. The land owned by the appellants was acquired along with larger extent for industrial purpose. The Collector conducted enquiry after issuing notification under Section 3(2) of the Act 10 of 1999. The District Collector ultimately submitted a report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, acquiring the land. 7. The appellants have placed reliance on the communication sent by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai to the Managing Director, SIPCOT wherein it was stated that Black Granite is available in the land and as such, it would not be prudent to acquire such land. 8.
Thereafter, the Government issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, acquiring the land. 7. The appellants have placed reliance on the communication sent by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai to the Managing Director, SIPCOT wherein it was stated that Black Granite is available in the land and as such, it would not be prudent to acquire such land. 8. The Collector, during the course of enquiry, found that the subject land is situated on the middle of the scheme area and in view of the situation, it would not be possible to acquire the land in and around the said land. 9. The materials available on record show that quarrying operation was continued till 1989. Thereafter, agreement with the Government was not renewed. It is therefore clear that the quarrying operation was discontinued 20 years before the issuance of notification for acquisition. We, therefore, reject the contention on the basis of the nature of land sought to be acquired. 10. The appellants have not shown any kind of statutory violation in the matter of acquisition. The acquired land is part of larger extent of land acquired for industrial purpose. The learned Single Judge answered the issues raised by the appellants and rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. The appellants have not produced any acceptable materials before us to take a different view in the matter. We therefore confirm the order passed by the writ court. 11. In the upshot, we dismiss the intra court appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.