Tube Suppliers Limited vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Another

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—The writ petitioner is a company. The writ petitioner has filed a petition in W.M.P. No. 565 of 1997 for the

substitution of the present name of the company, ""MAC Industrial Products Ltd."" in the place of ""Tube Suppliers Ltd."". Under the scheme of

amalgamation, the company''s name was changed as V.R.W. Industries Limited with effect from 13.11.1990 and by a subsequent amalgamation

V.R.W. Industries Limited was merged with Tubes and Malleable Limited by an order of this court in Company Petition Nos.177 and 178 of

1974 and the name of the company was also changed to MAC Industrial Products Ltd. Since there is a change in the name of the petitioner by an

order of this court, the petition in W.M.P. No. 565 of 1997 to amend the name of the petition in the cause title is ordered.

The writ petitioner owns a piece of land in Vanagaram Village, Saidapet Taluk. The petitioner is running a factory manufacturing fire bricks. The

petitioner set up the factory store room, drying yeard, kiln, etc., for running the factory of manufacturing fire bricks. The petitioner has open space

which is used for storing materials as well as for free access of lorries used for the purpose of its business. The property is situate in survey Nos.

9,10, 17, 18, 20, 15/28, 76, 16/1 and 10.

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for the

purpose of formation of Maduravoyal Neighbourhood Scheme and the notification was published in the Government Gazette dated 25.9.1985.

The petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules on 29.10.1985. According to the petitioner, the

first respondent has not given publicity of the acquisition proceedings and has not put up the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in convenient places in

the said locality. However, after the receipt of the notice under Rule 3, the petitioner has made a detailed representation on 8.11.1985 and

participated in the enquiry held on 18.11.1985. The main contention of the petitioner is that the description of property was not properly given and

the description of boundaries did not tally correctly. Since the sketch showing the exact location of the land proposed to be acquired was not

supplied, the petitioner has made further representation on 19.11.1985 protesting against the acquisition and giving the reasons against

implementing the Neighbourhood Scheme. The second respondent forwarded a communication of the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board

wherein it is stated that the objection are overruled. The petitioner made further representation against the remarks of the authority and further

enquiry was held on the basis of the objection of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the representation made by the petitioner. The declaration u/s

6 of the Act was duly published. According to the petitioner, the declaration was published on 29.9.1986 and in the declaration, with regard to

northern boundary, there is a difference with the boundaries given in the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner has come before this

Court on the ground that there was no simultaneous publication or notice at convenient places in the said locality along with the notification u/s 4(1)

of the Act and the petitioner was not able to give effective representation in the absence of the sketch indicating the area sought to be acquired and

the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are merely cripple remarks and there is no specific need to acquire the petitioner''s land and the

description of property made in the declaration u/s 6 of the Act did not tally with the description found in the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act.

The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating the facts relating to the proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act. On a perusal of

the counter-affidavit, it is clear that notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.9.1985, and the

petitioner''s land of an extent of 0.15 acre in survey No. 16/1 was sought to be acquired along with other lands for the formation of Maduravoyal

Neighbourhood Scheme to provide housing facilities to the general public.. The notice u/s 5-A of the Act was served on the petitioner on

30.11.1985. Since the petitioner raised objections to the acquisition proceedings, the objections were forwarded to the requisitioning

body/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the remarks of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board were also communicated to the land owners.

Further, an enquiry under Rule 3(b) of the rules framed u/s 55(1) of the Act was held on 18.4.1986 and 15.5.1986 in the presence of land owners

and the representatives of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette

dated 29.9.1986. The respondents have denied that the local publication was not made. According to the respondents, notification u/s 4(1) of the

Act was published in the Government Gazette and in the local dailies viz., Daily Thanthi and News Today and the copy of the notification was

published in the village by beating tom tom by the Village Administrative Officer and the notification was published in public Offices. The petitioner

was served with the copy of notification on 30.10.1985. As regards the description of boundaries, it is stated that at the time of issuing of

notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the boundaries for the entire survey No. 16/1 was given and after hearing the petitioner, since the land sought to be

acquired was only 0.15 acre in Survey N0.16/IB, correct boundaries for the land sought to be acquired is given in the declaration u/s 6 of the Act.

The respondents also stated that it is not possible to supply the sketch of the lands sought to be acquired to the 1and owners and the petitioner

should have verified the same with the Office of the Tahsildar of Saidapet. The petitioner in his letter dated 16.7.1986 has enclosed a copy of the

sketch which clearly shows that the petitioner has a copy of the sketch. According to the respondents, the land sought to be acquired is only situate

in the back yard of the factory where the wastages are dumped and there is no loss that would be caused to the petitioner by acquiring a small

portion of the land for the public purpose.

The petitioner has also filed a petition to raise additional grounds by stating that the Government has excluded from the scope of land acquisition

proceedings certain lands belonging to some other factories and when the policy of the Government is to protect the industry, the acquisition sought

to be made is in violation of the Government policy. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit to this petition. Hence, the petition to

raise the additional grounds in W.M.P.2804 of 1990 is allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and submitted that there was no

proper enquiry u/s 5A of the Act and the remarks of the requisitioning body are merely cryptic remarks and unless the remarks contained reasons,

the petitioner was not in a position to raise objection as to why the land should not be acquired. He also stated that the Government has a policy,

to exclude the land belonging to factories and the land needed for factory purpose. He also submitted that the land covered in the notification is

only a small extent lying in the fringe of the scheme. It is also brought to my notice the sketch showing that adjacent lands have been exempted

from the acquisition proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice. He also submitted that the land is

used for the purpose of business of the company as it is used to dry the wet bricks in the open space and if the land is acquired, it will affect the

business of the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate submitted that all formalities prescribed under the Act are complied with and there is no

reason to exclude the petitioner''s land from the scope of the scheme. He submitted that enquiry as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Land

Acquisition Rules was held and the objection of the petitioner was duly considered and after considering the objections, the declaration u/s 6 of the

Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. He also submitted that just because certain other lands were excluded from the

acquisition proceedings, it does not mean that the petitioner''s land should also be excluded. He, therefore, submitted that the land is needed for

public purpose and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The fact remains that when the second respondent issued notice under Rule 3 of the Rules, the petitioner raised an objections by a letter dated

8.11.1985. In the letter dated 8.11.1985, the petitioner set out the objections in detail. The objections was forwarded to the requisitioning body

and the requisitioning body merely sent a communication saying, ''objection may be overruled No doubt, the remarks of the requisitioning body

were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted its reply on 15.5.1986. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that further enquiry was

conducted on 18.4.1986 and 15.5.1986. But, the requisitioning body has not informed the reasons which led him to pass such remarks, ''objection

may be overruled The whole object of conducting enquiry under Rule 3 (b) is set out by decisions of this Court in Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of

Tamil Nadu, 1987 W.L.R.182 and in K.V. Krishna Iyer Vs. The State of Madras and Another, , as under:-

To comply with the requirement of the above rule, it was necessary to fix a date, after the receipt of objections for the hearing and give notice of

that date both to the objector as well as to the above department who was interested in the acquisition proceedings. It was urged by the learned

counsel that this obligation to give notice to the Department serves an important purpose both in the interests of the owner of the land as well as of

the Department, because if the department is made aware of the objections of the owner of the land, it might consider the alternative of selecting a

different land more suited for its purpose, and which may also meet the objections of the owner. This aspect of the rules has been referred to by a

Bench of the Kerala High Court while considering the Madras rules in the decision reported in Lonappan Vs. Sub-Collector, Palghat, and that

decision was also quoted before me.

In Sinnaiyan and Others Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry and Another, , K.S. Palaniswami, J. found the significance of compliance with

the Rule 3(b) and the learned Judge held as under:-

From this rule, it would be seen that the objector gets an opportunity to know, at the time of the enquiry, what answer if any, the company or the

department, for whom the acquisition is proposed to be made, has given with regard to his objections. On coming to know at the time of enquiry

how the objections are sought to be met by the company or the concerned department, the objector gets an opportunity to adduce evidence in

support of the objections. If the company or the concerned department has nothing to say in answer to the objections, the objector might urge

before the acquisition officer that the objections should be accepted as they are not controverted, though it would be open to the acquisition officer

on an appreciation of all the facts, either to accept or reject the objections. Such a procedure is laid down with a view to give the owner of the land

every reasonable opportunity to urge his objection against the proposed compulsory acquisition. In the instant case, the petitioner had no

opportunity to know the answer given by the concerned department, which is referred to by the acquisition officer in his report sent to the

Government. As already pointed out, the time given to the petitioner to file their objections expired on 10th May 1969, on which date the enquiry

itself was posted. The records do not show that the enquiry was adjourned form 10th May, 1969 to some other date and that on the adjourned

date the objections were examined in the light of the answer of the concerned department. On the other hand, the records show that the enquiry

was concluded on 10th May, 1969 itself. Therefore, it was impossible for the acquisition officer to have known on that date what the concerned

department had to say in answer to the objections of the petitioners. Thus, the mandatory provisions contained in R.3 were violated as the enquiry

was not conducted in accordance with the said rule.

In Alagammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (W.P. No. 2732 of 1983, etc., Batch, order dated 1.9.1983) Mohan, J. (as His Lordship then was)

followed the ratio of K.S. Palaniswamy, J. in Sinnaiyan Case, cited supra, and quashed the acquisition proceedings.

In Kadirvelu Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1987 W.L.R.182, Nainarsundaram, J. held that the compliance of Rule 3 (b) and (c) of the

Land Acquisition Tamil Nadu Rules (framed u/s 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act) is mandatory and the learned Judge held that the further

enquiry is to be held with a view to find out the tenability or otherwise of the acquisition proceedings on the basis of the consideration of the

objection of the petitioner, remarks of the requisitioning body, and the further representation of the petitioner on the remarks.

I am of the view that the requisitioning body should offer their remarks with reasons and unless remarks are offered it would not be possible for

the petitioner to make further representation over the remarks. Hence, it is incumbent on the requisitioning body to give reasons why the objections

of the petitioner were overruled. Hence, I am of the view that though records disclose that there was compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Rules, the

spirit behind Rule 3(b) of the Rules is not complied with. Mere communication from the requisitioning body, the objections were overruled would

not be sufficient for the land owner to make his representation on the remarks made by the requisitioning body. Hence, the requisitioning body is

duty bound to give reasons why the objections of the petitioner were overruled and only on the basis of such remarks, it would be possible for the

land owner to make further representation over the remarks to find out the tenability of the prosecution of the acquisition proceedings. In the

absence of any reason in the rejection report, even if any further enquiry is held, it would be an empty formality just to comply with the letter of law

and would not achieve the object for which the further enquiry is held. Therefore, I hold that the enquiry held without strict compliance of the

provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules which is held to be mandatory, is not valid in law. Therefore, the declaration u/s 6 of the Act, which is

challenged in this writ petition is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the

other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are given a liberty to proceed with further proceedings under

the Act on the basis of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act.

In the further proceeding, it is open to the petitioner to convince the respondents that the land of the petitioner is situate in the fringe of the area of

the proposed acquisition proceedings and the Government has excluded from the scope of the land acquisition proceedings certain adjacent lands

belonging to the neighbouring owners and the policy of the Government is to exclude the land used for factory purposes or on any other ground

that is open to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The two miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner in

W.M.P. Nos. 2804 of 1990 and 565 of 1997 are also ordered. No costs.