Dismissed

S.Dhatchinesh v. The Government of India

Madras HC24 Nov 2021WP/15994/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging the de-notification of lands acquired for an Industrial Growth Center sought reconveyance or a lease of the specific plots. The court held that as the zone's purpose was fulfilled with other industries, and vacant plots exist within the zone, the petitioners must apply through the proper channel rather than claiming a right to their original land or specific leases.

What did the court decide?

Reconveyance and lease of the specific lands prayed for are denied; petitioners directed to apply for alternative vacant plots available in the SEZ via the SIPCOT online portal.

S.Dhatchinesh Vs The Government of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.NOS.15994, 16001 & 16005 OF 2021 W.M.P.NOS.16994, 16911, 16913, 16995, 16916 & 16918 OF 2021

¶6

1.S.Dhatchinesh 2.D.Jagadeeshwaran 3.R.Chelliappan ...Petitioners in W.P.No.15994 of 2021 1.T.C.Nallsamy 2.R.Kandasamy 3.T.N.Thangamuthu ...Petitioners in W.P. No.16001 of 2021 1.C.Shanmugam 2.M.Kumarasamy 3.N.Selvakumar 4.N.Krishnaveni 5.M.Periyasamy 6.G.Valliammal 7.T.Kanthasamy ...Petitioners in W.P. No.16005 of 2021 -Vs1.The Government of India, Rep. by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 011. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Project Officer, Perundurai Engineering SEZ by SIPCOT, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District – 638 052, [erstwhile Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (TACID)] ...Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

Prayer in W.P.No.15994 of 2021 :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and third respondents to re-convey the lands comprised in survey Nos.373/1 measuring 1.39 acres, 373/2 measuring 3.43 acres, 373/3 measuring 1.85.0 hectares, 373/4 measuring 1.30.0 hectares in Perundurai Village of erstwhile Periyar District, presently classified as Erode District or alternatively grant lease of the said lands to the petitioners.

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.16001 of 2021 :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and third respondents to re-convey the lands comprised in survey No.372/1 measuring 5.06 acres and S.No.372/2 measuring 1.23 acres in Perundurai Village of erstwhile Periyar District, presently classified as Erode District or alternatively grant lease of the said lands to the petitioners.

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.16005 of 2021 :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and third respondents to re-convey the lands comprised in Survey Nos.381/2 measuring 0.04.0 hectares, 381/3 measuring 0.27.0 hectares, Survey Nos.381/2 measuring 0.11.5 hectares, 381/6 measuring 0.28.0 hectares, 382/2 measuring 0.41.5 hectares, 381/2 measuring 0.33.5 hectares, 381/6 measuring 0.83.0 hectares, survey No.382/4 measuring 0.55.0 hectares, survey No.381/2 and 381/6 measuring 0.16.0 ares, survey No.382/3 measuring 0.52.4 hectares, survey No.381/2 measuring 0.04.0 hectares, 381/4 measuring 0.48.0 hectares, survey No.381/2 measuring 0.90.0 hectares and 381/7 measuring 0.86.0 hectares in Perundurai Village of erstwhile Periyar District, presently classified as Erode District or alternatively grant lease of the said lands to the petitioners.

¶11

For Petitioner in all WPs : Ms.G.Thilakavathi Senior Counsel For Mr.R.Gopinath For Respondents in all WPs For R1 : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel Central Government Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader. For R3 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

These Writ Petitions have been filed to direct the second and third respondents to re-convey the petitioners' lands situated in Perundurai Village, Erode District or alternatively grant lease of the said lands to the petitioners.

¶15

The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners have owned the properties comprised in survey Nos.373/1 admeasuring 1.39 acres, 373/2 ad-measuring 3.43 acres, 373/3 admeasuring 1.85.0 hectares, 373/4 ad-measuring 1.30.0 hectares, survey No.372/1 ad-measuring 5.06 acres and S.No.372/2 admeasuring 1.23 acres, Survey Nos.381/2 ad-measuring 0.04.0 hectares, 381/3 ad-measuring 0.27.0 hectares, Survey Nos.381/2 ad-measuring 0.11.5 hectares, 381/6 ad-measuring 0.28.0 hectares, 382/2 ad-measuring 0.41.5 hectares, 381/2 ad-measuring 0.33.5 hectares, 381/6 ad-measuring 0.83.0 hectares, survey No.382/4 ad-measuring 0.55.0 hectares, survey No.381/2 and 381/6 ad-measuring 0.16.0 ares, survey No.382/3 ad-measuring 0.52.4 hectares, survey No.381/2 ad-measuring 0.04.0 hectares, 381/4 ad-measuring 0.48.0 hectares, survey No.381/2 ad-measuring 0.90.0 hectares and 381/7 ad-measuring 0.86.0 hectares, respectively, situated at Perundurai Village, Erode District.

¶16

Their lands were acquired for the purpose of setting up of an Industrial Growth Center by the Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (hereinafter called as “TACID”). The said acquisition was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.91 Industrial Department dated 27.02.1991 and the administrative sanction was accorded for the acquisition of lands ad-measuring 1114.16.5 hectares, about 2750 acres in Perundurai and Ingur Villages. Over a period of time, the Corporation concerned have been replaced with the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu (hereinafter called as “SIPCOT”), and the lands acquired under the said notification were presumably dealt with by SIPCOT under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as “the SEZ Act”).

¶17

The SEZ Act has been established for the development of management of industries, small scale industries predominantly involved in export activities, as such, the land acquired from the petitioners were kept unutilised, though the lands were acquired vide sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of TACID, during 1994 to 1997. On the basis of the report and recommendation of the Development Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the SEZ Act, the first respondent issued a notification in S.O.6475(E) dated 26.12.2018 to denotifying 26.407 hectares in concurrence and approval of the recommendation to de-notify the said lands by the second respondent herein in letter No.9637/MIE.2/2018/1.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Out of the total extent, an extent of 105.445 hectares were notified for the formation of Special Economic Zone by the first respondent. Out of the notified 105.445 hectares, for the establishment of Special Economic Zone, as per the report of the third respondent, with the approval of the State Government, the activities to be implemented has been fulfilled on the basis of the report of the Development Commissioner. An extent of 79.038 hectares of land has been declared to be de-notified after the purpose of requirement having been fulfilled. Thereafter, a large extent of the acquired land has been leased to Sakthi Foods Pvt. Ltd., for the period of 99 years, to carry out various activities. Therefore, the erstwhile landowners viz., the petitioners herein made representation with regard to the return of the unutilised land, which has been de-notified by the respondents herein, and they are ready and willing to return the sale consideration and sought for re-conveyance. In the alternative, they also prayed to lease out the un-utilised and de-notified lands to the petitioners.

¶20

Heard Ms.G.Thilakavathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in all the Writ Petition.

¶21

On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent revealed that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.91 Industries (MIG-II) Department dated 27.02.1991 for an extent of 2751.99 acres comprising Perundurai and Ingur Villages through land acquisition to establish Industrial Growth Centre and also an extent of 2543.15 acres was taken possession by TACID. Then the Special Economic Zone was established with an extent of 260.45 acres as per sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 vide Government of India gezette No.542 dated 23.04.2008 in SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai.

¶22

Further seen that as per the notification from the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce), New Delhi dated 26.12.2018, in exercise of power conferred by the Second provisio to sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and pursuance to Rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, the Central Government had approved de-notification to an extent of 65.25 acres out of 260.45 acres. Further, an extent of 50.28 acres out of 65.25 acres was allotted for formation of food and various industries as follows :-

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Sl. No.	Survey No.	Plot No.	Name of the Allottee
1	372	M-13, M-14 M-15	& Sakthi Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd.,
		M-13, M-14	& Sakthi Foods & Spices
2	373	M-15	Pvt. Ltd.,
		M-16	Ariya Food Products
		S-33	Erode Advanced Food Park Pvt. Ltd.,
3	381	S-34	Fresh Food Products
		S-35	Sakthi Fruit Products
		S-36	R.K.Impex
4	382	S-38	Shree Enterprises
		U-3	Pump House & UG Sump

¶25

Further, the acquired lands were developed as plots and alloted to the industries. It has been utilized for the purpose for which, it was acquired. No land has been reconveyed or leased out to any erstwhile owners, till date. The petitioners lands were already alloted in favour of the allottees as follows:-

¶26

S. No	Name of the Allottee	Plot No.	Extent in Acres	Date of allotment	Pr	oducts
1	Sakthi Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd.,	M-13, M-14 & M-15	9.34	20.02.2019/ 03.11.2020	Spice	products
2	Sakthi Fruits Products	S-35	2.23	20.02.2019	Fruit, Sauces	Jam, & Squach
3	Fresh Food Products	S-34	1.57	20.02.2019	Snacks items	& Bakery
4	Podaran Foods India Pvt. Ltd.,	M-10, M-11 & M-12	10.61	20.02.2019	Juices Mango, Guava, Orange	viz., Apple, Lichi, & Lemon
5	R.K.Impex	S-36	1.00	20.02.2019	Edible (Clod	Oil Pressed)
6	Ariya Food Products	M-16	4.18	20.02.2019	Fresh coconu natura & Spra coconu	tender t (with l effect) y dried t powder

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

S. No	Name of the Allottee	Plot No.	Extent in Acres	Date of allotment	Products
7	D.Santhi	P1	4.83	21.02.2019	Cold Storage Unit
8	P.C.Duraisamy	M-2	4.75	21.02.2019	Herbal drinks & juices
9	Sakthi Masala Pvt. Ltd.,	M-1	4.99	21.02.2019	Spices Products
10	Erode Advanced Food Park Pvt. Ltd.,	S-33	2.13	21.02.2019	Common Facility centre for food processing units viz., testing laboratory, cleaning, grading sorting and packing facilities, steam generation, boilers, dry warehouse cold storage, pre- colling chambers, ripening chambers, IQF, Specialized packaging, other common processing facilities etc.
11	Cheran fuels	P-2	2.65	11.06.2020	Petrol, diesel & LPG bunk
12	Shree Enterprises	S-39 Total	2.00 50.28	23.12.2020 & 11.01.2021	Disposable Syringes

¶29

Accordingly, the purpose of the acquisition has been fulfilled and the request of the petitioners cannot be considered.

¶30

The counter further revealed that the villagers including the petitioners illegally interfered and stopped the establishment of the food industries for more than three years from the year 2019. The industries have invested more than 15

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

crores of rupees for getting the allotment in this growth centre. All the incumbents are ready to establish the industries in the allotted lands, if no objections raised by the adjacent villagers. The petitioner cannot claim lease as a matter of right, just because their land were acquired. At the same time, they cannot claim reconvey of their respective lands as a matter of right. If at all, the petitioners wanted to get lease of the lands, they have to apply through proper channel viz., SIPCOT online portal, where the prospective allottees have to submit their applications for allotment.

¶33

In fact, the additional documents produced by the third respondent revealed that the vacant area is available in plot No.S-32 to an extent of 1.320 acres and plot No.CM-4 to an extent of 0.100 acres. Therefore, the petitioners can very well apply with their applications for allotment of land through online portal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to scrutinize the applications in respect of the allotment of lands available with them. In view of the above, the reconveyance of the subject property cannot be considered and all the writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

rts

¶36

¶37

1.The Secretary,

¶38

Government of India,

¶39

The Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶40

2.The Secretary to Government,

¶41

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶42

Industries Department,

¶43

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

3.The Project Officer, Perundurai Engineering SEZ by SIPCOT, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District – 638 052, [erstwhile Tamil Nadu Corporation for Industrial Infrastructure Development Limited (TACID)]

¶46

+6ccs to M/s.A.R.Sakthivel, Advocate SR.Nos.61050, 61051, 61052

¶47

+3CCS to M/s.R.Gopinath, Advocate SR.Nos.61032, 61033, 61034

¶48

W.P.Nos.15994, 16001 & 16005 of 2021 W.M.P.Nos.16994, 16911, 16913, 16995, 16916 & 16918 of 2021

¶49

SMI(CO) RVM(05/01/2022)

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Dhatchinesh v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dhatchinesh v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Vijayamurugan Vs The District Collector

S.Velavan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Akilan, S/o.Dr.K.K.Sekar, Vs The District Collector

K.Lakshmi Ammal Vs The District Collector

M.Vadivelu Vs The Managing Director

S.Narayanasamy Vs The District Collector