AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner in W.P.1977/98 is the Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd., who owned the lands in Survey No. 121/B, 121/2B,
121/3, 121/4, and 119/1 of an extent of 4.51 acres in Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore South Taluk. In the year 1996, the said lands were
proposed to be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for the purpose of constructing a hostel, house sites and burial ground etc., At that
relevant point of proposal, one Mr. G. Rangaswamy was shown as the managing Director of the petitioner mill and the notice u/s 4(2) of the said
Act was issued to him. The petitioner herein sent a reply to the Land Acquisition Officer, bringing out the fact that the said Mr. Rangaswamy had
resigned the post of Managing Director and he has nothing to do with the petitioner-mill. Apart from that the petitioner also submitted the
objections for the acquisition of the land on the ground that the land is required for the expansion of the housing scheme for their employees. The
adjacent lands have already been plotted out for construction of residential quarters and the employees of the petitioner mill have been allotted the
plots at concessional rates to enable them to construct the residential houses. The then Collector, who enquired the objections submitted by the
petitioner-mill, by his proceedings dated 22.9.96 had dropped the proposed acquisition proceedings.
The PSG, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., which was formed in the year 1985 to look after the basic housing needs of the employees
of the PSG and Sons Charities passed a resolution on 14.11.96 to buy the lands of an extent of 4.50 acres at the cost of Rs. 40 lakhs per acre.
The petitioner-mill through the Board of Directors resolved to sell the same to PSG Co-operative House Building Society in their meeting held on
22.11.96. Thereafter the sale agreement was entered into by both the parties. After getting clearance from the land ceiling authorities. the Co-
operative Housing Society sought the permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Housing to purchase the lands. The Registrar, Co-operative
Housing also granted necessary permission on 6.11.97. Subsequently sale deeds were executed by the petitioner in favor of the Co-operative
Building Society. At that stage, the petitioner was served with the notice u/s 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978 informing the proposal to acquire
the land. This time also the notice was sent to Mr. G. Rangasamy who has nothing to do with the petitioner-mill about which the Land Acquisition
Officer has already been informed in the year 1996 itself. At the instance of one Chandraganthiammal, mother of the said Mr. Rangasamy, some
steps were taken to declare the land as ''surplus'' under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act or otherwise the land is proposed to be acquired.
On coming to know of the acquisition proceedings, the Co-operative Housing Society also submitted the objections stating that they are the
interested persons in the land and they should also be served with notice. The second respondent, however, granted time for the Society to file
their objections and the Society to file their objections and the Society also submitted their objections for acquisition of the land. The petitioner also
submitted their objections for the acquisition. Now at this stage, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of prohibition restraining
the respondents from issuing any notification u/s 4(1)of of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978.
The Co-operative Society filed the writ petition 2728 of 1998 for almost the same relief contending that they are interested persons in the land
and the registration of the sale deed is pending. Even though at the time of proposal for the acquisition the registration of the sale deed was
pending, in December, 1997 the registration was completed and the Co-operative Society has become the owner of the land. In fact, in order to
avoid any technical objections, both the vendor as well as the vendee had filed both these writ petitions and the same can be taken up for joint
disposal in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties in a comprehensive manner.
The respondents have filed counter affidavit in W.P. 2728/98 alone wherein it is stated that on the proposal to acquire the above said land the
inquiry notice in Form -I u/s 4(2) and Rule 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 31/1978 were sent to the land owners Mr. Rangasamy, Managing
Director of the petitioner-mills, M/s Raghupathy, Balakrishnan, Subramaniam, Thirtharappan, Mounagurusamy and Brinda Moorthy. The inquiry
u/s 4(2) was conducted on 22.7.96. The land owners filed their written objections on that day. After considering the representations or the
objections put forth by the land owners, the acquisition proceedings had been dropped as per the Collector''s proceedings dated 22.9.96. On the
representation of Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare Association, Coimbatore branch, the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department, Chennai in his letter dated 29.10.97 has issued instructions to take immediate action to acquire the land in question under the
Tamil Nadu Act 31/1978. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and the second respondent was instructed to initiate immediate action to
acquire the lands. As per the said direction, notices in Form -I u/s 4(2) and Rule 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 31/78 were issued to the land
owners whose names were found in the revenue records. M/s. G. Rangasamy, S.N. Subramaniam. Brinda Moorthy and Vaidhiyanathan had
received the inquiry notices on 16.11.97 and 17.11.97 The other land owners, the Managing Director of the petitioner-mill, M/s. Raghupathy, R.
Balakrishnan, Mounagurusamy, Venkatachalam and Thirtharappan have refused to receive the enquiry notices. Hence the above statutory notices
were served by way of affixture, duly attested by the Village Administrative Officer, Uppilipalayam. The inquiry under Section4(2) of the said Act
was conducted on 4.12.97. All the land owners, except M/s. G. Rangasamy and Thirtharappan, have filed their objections through their counsel.
The land owners have requested two months time to file the detailed objections. The proposal u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, overruling the
objections was submitted to the first respondent on 5.12.97. After pursuing the objections put forth by the land owners, the second respondent
was instructed to give one more opportunity to the land owners to file their objections. Accordingly the land owners were informed through their
counsel on 11.12.97 to file their objections within one week from the date of receipt of the said intimation. Except M/s. G. Rangasamy and
Thirtharappan. others have filed objections on 19.12.97. All the objections were overruled and the proposal u/s 4(1) was submitted by the second
respondent on 24.12.97. The same was approved by the first respondent on 29.12.97. The notification was published in the Coimbatore District
Gazatte on 28.1.98. Only at this stage, the writ petition has been filed.
It is further stated that even though the land acquisition proceedings were dropped by proceedings dated 22.9.96, still the fresh proceedings had
been initiated on 10.11.97 on the instructions of the Government. After knowing of the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, the Co-
operative Housing Society has purchased the property on 23.12.97 to stall the entire acquisition proceedings. The Society has not established the
fact of taking possession on 22.11.96; the date of agreement. Since the registration has not been completed and the sale deeds were pending
registration, the petitioner-Society cannot be considered to be a person interested in the land proposed for acquisition and hence the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed.
Even though no counter affidavit has been filed in W.P. 1977/98 the learned Additional Government Pleader represented that the, counter
affidavit filed in W.P.2728/98 can be adopted for this writ petition also as more or less the plea raised by both the petitioners are identical
Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.2728/98 contended that the acquisition proceedings initiated earlier
were dropped in the year 1996 after considering the objections raised by the vendor of the petitioner. There is absolutely no reason for the
respondents to reconsider their decision of dropping the acquisition proceedings and to initiate fresh proceeding. Further when the District
Collector, the appropriate authority under the Act to consider and take a decision with regard to the suitability of the land or otherwise, it is not
open to the Government to issue direction for the acquisition of the land. From the counter affidavit it is clear that the acquisition proceedings had
been initiated on the representation of a particular association and as such the Government has not reinitiated the acquisition proceedings on
reconsideration of the Collector''s decision to drop the acquisition proceedings. But, however, without applying their mind, the Government has
simply obliged the requisition made by a particular association. Since the Collector has dropped the acquisition proceedings, the parties have
entered into the sale transaction. When the parties have changed their position on the basis of the decision of the Collector, it is not open to the
Government now to acquire the land on the ground of promissory estoppel. Further when the land is being used for the purpose of providing house
sites for the poor workers who are the members of the petitioner-Society and the Housing Cooperative Society of the employees having
purchased the land, it may not be proper for the Government to acquire the land for the same purpose of providing house sites to some other
group. There is no doubt that the Co-operative Housing Society is also utilizing the land only for the public purpose i.e., providing house sites for
their own members. Hence the entire acquisition proceeding is vitiated by mala fides and illegality.
On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the relief sought for in both the writ petitions is not to proceed with
the acquisition proceedings by issue of 4(1) notification. When already the notification u/s 4(1) had been issued, these writ petitions have become
infructuous. Even otherwise, the dropping of the acquisition proceedings by the Collector is not final. The Government, being the eminent domain
has got power to direct the authorities to acquire the land and no one can question the power of eminent domain in proceeding with the acquisition
of the land for public purpose. Hence there is no illegality in the present acquisition proceedings and the same is quite valid and legal. So far as the
contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the mala fides, the allegation is vague. The principles of promissory estoppel
has no application to the facts of the present case and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. On coming to know about the acquisition proposal in the year 1996. the petitioner in
W.P.I977/98 had submitted the objections on 22.7.96 wherein it is stated that the petitioner had apportioned 14.46 acres for forming roads which
will be used by the staff. Since there are residential houses on all the four sides of the land and as a colony has come up near these lands, the
petitioner wants to use the land for providing permanent residential facilities for their executive staff and employees and also to build an educational
institution. Moreover, the cost of the land per cent is about Rs. 50,000/- and as such the cost of the proposed acquired land approximately comes
to Rs. 2,25,00,000/- which will be a heavy burden on the state exchequer. The said petitioner has also suggested some other alternative lands and
requested the acquisition proceedings may be dropped.
On consideration of this representation, then Collector of Coimbatore in his proceedings Ref. 89783/96 N8 dated 22.9.96 had dropped the
acquisition proceedings in the following terms:
The Petitioners cited are informed that in the circumstances of the core as explained by the petitioner the proposed acquisition of 4.51 acres of
land in S.F. No. 119/1, 121/1 of Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore (South) Taluk has been drooped.
Subsequent to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings, the PSG Cooperative House Building Society, the petitioner in W.P.2728/98 has
passed a resolution on 14.11.96 to purchase the land for the purpose of constructing the houses for the members of the said Society who, are all
the employees of the other petitioner-mills. The PSG Co-operative House Building Society sought the permission of the Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Societies (Housing). Coimbatore for the purchase of the land and for allotment of the same to the members of the said Society. The
Deputy Registrar, in turn, had forwarded the same to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing). The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
(Housing) in his proceedings dated 6.11.97 has permitted the said Co-operative Society to purchase the land and to allot the same to the members
of the Society in the following terms.
At this stage, on 14.11.97 once again the proposal to acquire the lands under dispute had been revived. Even though as contended by both the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, no notice was served on the petitioner-mill herein as well as the petitioner-Society, both of them had
submitted their objections for the acquisition. When the acquisition proceeding was revived, admittedly there was an agreement by the PSG Co-
operative House Building Society and the petitioner-mill to purchase the land for the purpose of constructing the houses for the members of the
Society who, in turn undisputedly are the employees of the petitioner-mill. On 11.11.97 a portion of the land has been registered in favour of the
petitioner-Society. Hence in view of these admitted facts, the statement made by the respondent in the counter that on coming to know about the
acquisition proposal for the second time, the petitioner in both the writ petitions have entered into an agreement by collusion to avoid the
acquisition proceeding cannot be accepted. Further there is absolutely no basis for such an averment.
When a major portion of the sale had been completed before even the second proposal for acquisition was revived and only some of the sale
deeds relating to a smaller extent of the land are pending registration. I am of the view that the contention of the learned Additional Pleader that the
entire transaction between the petitioners is to avoid the acquisition proceedings by colluding with each other, has to rejected as baseless. There is
no material placed before this court by the respondents as to the revival of the proposal for acquisition before even both the petitioners entered into
the agreement of sale and before even the Co-operative Housing Society took a decision to purchase the land for the purpose of providing house
sites to their members.
Even in the counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically admitted about the dropping of the acquisition proceedings by the Collector in
his proceedings dated 22.9.96. Subsequently after the lapse of one year, the acquisition proceedings were revived on the direction of the
Government in their proceedings dated 29.10.97. Consequent of which the second respondent in his proceedings dated 10.11.97 has revived the
acquisition proceedings by which time the transaction between the petitioners had almost reached a stage of completion. There is no dispute that
only subsequent to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners in these writ petitions decided to utilize the land for the purpose of
the members of the Co-operative Housing Society and obtained permission from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing). When once
the appropriate authority under the statute has granted permission to the petitioner Co-operative Society, there cannot be any dispute that almost
the Society''s transaction had reached the final stage and admittedly some of the sale deeds were also registered immediately thereafter.
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes (Act 31 of 1978) is as follows:
Power to acquire land.-(1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to
acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazarte a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in
pursuance of this section.
(2) Before publishing a notice under Subsection (1), the District Collector or any officer authorized by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call
upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorized may be interested in such land, to
show cause why it should not be acquired.
(3) (a) The District Collector may, where he has himself called upon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-section (2), pass such
orders as he may deem fit on the cause so shown;
(b) Where any officer authorized by the District Collector has called upon the owner or other person to show cause under Sub-section (2), the
officer so authorized shall make a report to the District Collector containing his recommendations on the cause so shown for the decision of the
District Collector. After considering such report the District Collector may pass such orders as he may deem fit.
Sub-section (1) of Section 4 empowers the District Collector to acquire the land by publishing the notice to that effect in the District Gazette that
he has decided to acquire the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 contemplates that the District Collector either himself or through his authorised
officer has to call upon the owner or any other person who has got any interest in the land to show cause as to why it should not be acquired. Sub-
clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 empowers the Collector to pass orders as he may deem fit on the representation of the and owners, i.e.,
on the cause so shown. These procedures prescribed under the statute clearly reveal that before even the final notice with regard to the acquisition
is to be published, it is the duty of the Collector to issue show-cause notice to the owner or any other person interested in the opinion of the
Collector or his representative. On receipt of such reply from the land owner or the person interested, the Collector has to consider the same on
merits and pass final orders, which means whether to acquire the land by proceeding with the issue of notice as contemplated under Sub-section
(1) of Section 4 or to drop the proceeding. In this case, admittedly the Collector has passed an order, dropping the proceedings as early as
22.9.96. The action of the then Collector in dropping the acquisition proceedings had been accepted by the Government, since the Government
did not review the said order and take a different decision at the relevant point of time. Even now the order of the then Collector dated 22.9.96
dropping the acquisition proceedings has been accepted as valid, since the respondents in their counter had not challenged the authority of the then
Collector in passing such orders or either any motive has been attributed to the then Collector in passing such orders. Hence the then Collector
acted bona fidely and considered the representation of the petitioner-mill herein and genuinely thought that the acquisition of the land has to be
dropped.
The reason for the revival of the acquisition has been plainly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent herein in W.P.2728/98
as follows:
On the representation of Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare Association, Coimbatore branch, the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai in his letter No. 21573/EA.III/97 dated 29.10.1997 has issued instructions to take immediate action to
acquire the lands in questions under T.N.L.A. Act 31/78. Accordingly in this office proceedings No. 6556/97 N8 dated 10.11.1997 the 2nd
respondent was instructed to initiate immediate action to acquire the lands.
As stated already, Section 4(1) of the said Act empowers the Collector to issue notice in respect of the acquisition of the land. Sub clause (a) of
Sub-section (3) of Section 4 empowers the Collector to consider the objections of the land owners and pass an order on the objections. When the
Collector had passed such orders as early as 22.9.96, it is not known as to how the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, Chennai had issued instructions to the first respondent to acquire the land. The said Secretary is not the appropriate authority to take
any decision in respect of the acquisition of the land under the said Act. Hence the direction issued by the said secretary to Government Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department is not only arbitrary exercise of power but also without any authority under the statute.
The letter dated 29.10.97 of the Secretary to Government is as follows:
From the above letter, the Secretary has a simply referred that Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare Association, Coimbatore had made
representation on 11.7.97 and 30.7.97 that the Adi Dravidar should be allotted housing plots in Survey No. 119 and 121 of an extent 4.50 acres
and hence the lands may be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 by the Collector, since he is the competent authority to initiate the
acquisition proceedings. Only pursuant to this letter, now the acquisition proceedings had been revived.
The two things arise for consideration here are :-
(i) When the Collector is the absolute authority to exercise his discretionary power to acquire or to drop the acquisition of land in accordance with
Section 4(3) (a) of the said Act whether the secretary to Government can direct the Collector to acquire the land.
(ii) Whether the Collector is discharging his statutory duties in accordance with Section 4of the said Act because the discretionary power to
consider the objections of the owners or the other persons interested in the land and take a decision is taken away.
As stated already, when the District Collector is the authority to call for the objections for acquisition and to consider the same and to pass
orders thereon as to whether the lands have to be acquired or not, such discretionary power of the statutory authority cannot be interfered with by
any other individual. It is totally a different matter, if the Government takes a decision as a policy. But here the Secretary to Government who is
nowhere in the Statute had given such a direction to the Collector to proceed with the acquisition of the land. When the Collector acts under the
direction of the Secretary, then the issue of notice, as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 has become a quite formal one. It goes
with out saying that when the Collector, in obedience to the instructions of the Secretary, revived the acquisition proceedings, naturally the
Collector is bound to overrule the objections of the land owners or the persons interested, irrespective of the merits or validity of such objections.
The District Collector is acting mechanically under the directions of the Secretary to Government and he has been deprived of the exercise of his
discretionary power prescribed under sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4. Hence, I am of the view that the acquisition proceedings
cannot be sustained.
More over, merely because the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Association has sought for the allotment of the land for providing house sites, the
Secretary to Government has simply directed the Collector to proceed with the acquisition of that particular land. When the Government is bound
to provide house sites for the poor and down-trodden, at the same time, the poor and down-trodden cannot be placed in a commanding position
to select a particular site and compel the Government to acquire that land of a particular individual and allot the same to them for providing house
sites. It will be a high-handed action of the Association which ever religion or community or otherwise may be the members of the Association
belongs. It should not be forgotten that they are getting some benefits under the Welfare schemes as provided under the Directive Principles of the
Constitution of India.
When an individual group is deriving certain benefits, they should not be allowed to become the master to command and demand. It is the absolute
discretion of the State to select a particular site under the power of eminent domain for the provision of the houses sites to the poor and
downtrodden of any community. Hence the appropriate authority prescribed under the statute has to apply his mind and take a decision for the
acquisition of a particular site.
From the above stated facts, it is clear that merely on the basis of the representation of Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare Association for the
allotment of this particular land situated in S.F.No.119 and 212, the Secretary to Government. Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department has
directed the Collector to acquire the land which, in my view, is highly improper. When the lands are so costly one has to consider whether the
exchequer will bear that much of commitment. Sitting on the civil side as well as on the writ side, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact of time
being taken by the Government for the deposit of the compensation amount awarded by the courts in respect of large number of acquisition cases
which ultimately forced the Government to bring an amendment in the Land Acquisition Act by introduction of Section 23-A prohibiting the land
owners from withdrawing the compensation amounts unless and until the cases are finally decided.
It should be remembered that the state Governments are bound to provide the house sites, but at the same time they are not bound to provide
the house sites at a particular site, as demanded by the beneficiaries. When a particular site is selected by the beneficiaries and they demand for the
allotment of that particular site for the provision of house sites, always there is some ulterior motive involved in such request. The Secretary to
Government, without consulting the hierarchy with regard to the liability of the exchequer, cannot commit himself to such a huge sum for acquisition
of the land for providing house sites, that too without going into the question as to the availability of any other alternative land at a lesser cost or any
other alternative poramboke land, free of cost so that many more can be benefited. The manner in which the direction has been issued by the
Secretary to Government gives an impression to the court that he has merely obliged to the request of the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare
Association, without any application of mind and hence the direction issued by the said Secretary, as stated already, is not only arbitrary but also
without any authority.
The selection of the site, as held by the Apex Court in many cases, is only to the subjective satisfaction of the acquiring authority. When the
acquiring authority is expected to consider the availability of other alternative lands, either with lesser cost or free of cost, it is for him to take a
decision. By issuing a specific direction to acquire a particular land to the acquiring officer by the superior authority, the question of subjective
satisfaction regarding the selection of the site by the acquiring authority is lost. As stated already, if the Secretary had an occasion to deal with the
question of selection of site and comes to the conclusion that the site directed to be acquired is suitable for the public purpose for which it is to be
acquired, it can be tolerated on the ground that even though the higher authority issues direction, he has considered the suitability of the land and
came to the conclusion. In this case, the direction to acquire the land had been issued by the Secretary to Government only at the request of the
Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Welfare Association and the lands are proposed to be acquired on the basis of such direction.
Hence it goes without saying that the lands are being acquired only to the subjective satisfaction of the Tamil Nadu Aranthathiar Welfare
Association and not to the subjective satisfaction of any of the authorities prescribed under the Statute.
Though notices were issued, calling for the objections, I am of the view that for theoretical purposes in order to satisfy the requirement of the
statute, the objections have been called for. As stated already when the Collector is acting under the direction of the Secretary to Government,
how for these objections will be considered subjectively by the acquisition officer, is a known factor.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners raised an objection with regard to the service of notice contending that really interested persons
have not been served with the notices. Since the interested persons have submitted their objections, I do not want to enter into a detailed
discussion on this issue for the simple reason that the objections submitted by the interested persons were rejected to complete the formality and
the notice u/s 4(1) of the said Act was published.
Now the petitioner-Society is also using the land for providing the house sites for various individuals, even though they are the employees of the
petitioner-mill in W.P.I 977/98.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani
Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and another etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others etc., in which it has been held as follows:
This area of 20 acres is inclusive of land for laying of the roads and other requirements contemplated under the development scheme For
convenience and adjustment we are of the view that two more acres of land be made available to the five co-operative societies to be shared by
amicable adjustment by them. Thus from the acquisition Notification 22 acres of land shall stand deleted and shall be released in accordance with
the extent indicated for each of the five co-operative societies. The identification of the land to be so released shall be made within four weeks from
the date of pronouncement of the order by mutual arrangement. We direct that when the land shall be so identified, the order of release from
acquisition by appropriate description of the land shall be made sketch maps showing the identified land shall also be signed by parties to avoid
future litigation and made over to each of the societies.
We commend that all the five co-operative societies may form themselves into a federation for the purpose of ensuring appropriate development of
the area and sharing either in common or by division the 2.83 acres of extra land which is directed to be released from acquisition.
In this case the apex Court considered the question of the need of the Housing Cooperative Society of the land acquired by the Government and
ultimately directed the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings, finding that the requirement of the housing society is benefited and the
members of the said society are the beneficiaries.-
Yet another case of this Court in Saroja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, is worth while to refer here. In this case, the Government
proposed to acquire the land of the Co-operative Society of which the petitioner being a member and allotted a site for the construction of the
house. The learned Judge had allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings finding that one public purpose cannot be
interfered with another public purpose in the following terms:
I have given my anxious consideration and I have no hesitation in holding that there cannot be any acquisition of a public purpose when the land is
being used for another public purpose. Once it is found that the Co-operative Society could be regarded as constituted for the benefit of the public
and that in general building schemes were to be considered advantageous to the public and that even though the direct and immediate beneficiaries
under the schemes might be individuals, it was public purpose as it benefited on the public generally, any interference in the scheme of housing
society by another acquisition will constitute interference in a public purpose. There can be no public purpose, which shall interfere with another
public purpose and if there are two public purposes in conflict, one which has proceeded ahead must be allowed to proceed further. For the
reason, as above, I am satisfied that in the instant acquisition of land for the purpose of Staff Quarters of the Employees of the Repeater Station of
the Public Works Department, Hydrology Division has been made without taking notice of the public purpose of the Kodaikanal House Building
Co-operative Society Limited, and has accordingly been done without due care and regard to the scheme of the law in the Land Acquisition Act.
The acquisition being in the teeth of the law, as I have noticed above, the same has to be annulled.
On the above laid principles, also I am of the view that the respondents cannot be permitted to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.
Coming to the other contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the prayer in the writ petition W.P. 1977/98 filed by the
Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd.. is for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents from issuing any notification u/s 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 and now that the said notification had already been issued in the District Gazette as
early as 28.1.98, the writ petition is not maintainable, I am of the view that if that writ petition alone is before this court, this Court can appreciate
the technical plea raised by the Government Pleader. But now that two writ petitions, one filed by the Mills and the other filed by the employee of
the said Mills constituting a Housing Cooperative Society are before this Court and the counsel have agreed for joint disposal of both the writ
petitions by consent, I am of the view that this Court can take the pleadings as well as the prayer in both the writ petitions jointly and grant the
relief. The writ petition has already been entertained and the respondents having failed to file any counter, even though the matter had been
adjourned for several occasions, I am not in a position to appreciate the technical objection raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
Even though both the petitioners could have sought for quashing of the acquisition proceedings by seeking the relief as certiorari, the
consequence of filing of the writ petition is only to prevent the authorities from proceeding with the acquisition on the ground that the entire action
of the respondent in reviving the acquisition proceeding is without jurisdiction, as the same is in accordance with the directions issued by the
Secretary to Government. I am of the view that this court feels that the writ of prohibition can be issued especially when considering the facts and
circumstances of the case which had been elaborately discussed above. For all the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed. But,
however, there will be no order as to costs.