LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-429

M.G. MUHUNDHARAJAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 14, 2017
M.G. Muhundharajan Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order, dated 08.11.2011 made in W.P.(MD) No.12550 of 2011, which was filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 24.03.2011, by which the Government rejected the request made by the appellant for re conveyance of the land, which was acquired for an Industrial Estate Project to be promoted by the fifth respondent - SIDCO.

(2.) The appellant's case is that his grandfather's property was acquired by the third respondent invoking the urgency clause under section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act"), during 1963, for the purpose of establishment of an Industrial Estate without providing alternate site to the land owners. It is submitted that the establishment of the Industrial Estate was abandoned in the year 1988 and the entire lands were transferred to the fifth respondent - SIDCO by way of G.O.Ms.No.785, dated 07.06.1988. However, till date, the lands have not been utilized by fifth respondent - SIDCO. Therefore, in the year 2003, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.39273 of 2002 challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches by order dated 28.11.2003, however, liberty was granted to the appellant to file an application, under Section 48-B of the Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1996, for re-conveyance.

(3.) It is submitted that the second respondent / Secretary, Small Industries Department (SIC) Department has no jurisdiction to reject the application filed by the appellant for re-conveyance and mechanically rejected the same by orders, dated 10.02.2005 and 10.11.2008. This was challenged before the first respondent by submitting an appeal petition. However, the request made in the appeal petition was not considered by the first respondent and the same was rejected by order dated 24.03.2011, which was challenged in the writ petition and the same was dismissed by the impugned order.