The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Nine appeals challenging land acquisition allowed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Nine appeals challenging land acquisition allowed

K.T.Sangameswaran

High Court insists procedure be followed in Oragadam case

Appellants say no notices were issued and that acquisition proceedings were null and void
They say notice issued in a dead person's name is non est in law

CHENNAI: While allowing nine writ appeals challenging the notification for acquiring lands for the prestigious industrial complex at Oragadam in Kancheepuram district, the Madras High Court has observed that strict compliance with the procedure under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act is a must. This is particularly because the procedure contemplated under the law itself is a summary one.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and M. Venugopal made the observation in its common judgment in appeals which challenged a single judge's order dated June 3, 2008. The government decided to expand the Oragadam Industrial Complex and identified about 395.87 hectares of patta and poromboke lands in Oragadam and Sennakuppam in Sriperumbudur taluk. According to the authorities, notices were sent to land owners whose names were found in the revenue records. After enquiry, the government approved the publication of notices. A single judge dismissed all petitions. Hence, the present appeals.

The appellants, J. Doraibabu and others contended that no notices were issued to them. Therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings were null and void. The authorities submitted that since the property stood in the name of Jayaraman, notice was issued to him.

The Bench said non-service of individual notices on the nine appellants in spite of the fact that they had purchased the properties long before initiation of the acquisition proceedings, and issue of notices in the name of the original owner, Mr. Jayaraman, who died a decade prior to acquisition proceedings, vitiated the proceedings. Notice issued in a dead person's name was non est in law. The lock, stock and barrel rejection of the lawful objections raised by the appellants by the District Collector “in the process of his undue haste in sending the report to the government, also vitiates the acquisition proceedings”.

The Bench observed that the Industrial Purposes Act had been enacted as a special legislation to speed up the acquisition of land for industrial purposes. But the Act had never dispensed with the procedure of audi alteram partem (hearing the other side). The legislature had taken every possible caution to protect the interest of the land owners, persons interested and also the occupiers of the lands.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu