Allowed

Arps Engineering v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries

Madras HC24 Jun 2022WP(MD)/12738/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an enhanced cost demand for an industrial plot. Due to a change in the calculated amount and levied interest by the corporation, the impugned order was set aside and remitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 21.09.2011 set aside and matter remitted to respondent to fix correct land value and consider concessions.

Arps Engineering Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011 and

¶7

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶8

ARPS Engineering Enterprises, L6, Electrical & Electronic Industrial Estate, Represented by its Managing Director, V.Prema Latha ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Represented by its Branch Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ariya Mangalam, Trichy-620 010.

¶11

2.Tamil Nadu Small Industrial Development, Corporation Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Near SIDCO Electronics Complex, Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶16

quash the impugned notice of demand dated 21.09.2011 issued by the first respondent and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2011 and direct the respondents to handover the plot bearing No.E-3 at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Vazhavanthankottai.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Ram Kumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran for R1

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Small industries Development Corporation, under which an additional amount was demanded from the petitioner, who was allotted as industrial plot on a tentative cost on 08.03.2007. While the writ petition is pending, the respondent corporation has presented a working sheet, under which they have arrived at a different amount, which is higher than the amount demanded in the impugned order.

¶20

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, from the

¶21

date of allotment, the writ petitioner has to complete the entire payment

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶25

within a period of two (2) years. Since the said process has not been complied with by the writ petitioner, the respondent corporation has enhanced the cost of the plot. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the corporation is entitled to enhance the said amount in view of the fact that only a tentative cost was arrived at the time of allotment.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent has also produced a working sheet to the effect that from the date of actual demand of the enhanced amount, interest has been levied. The respondent corporation has also levied interest for the non payment of the amount, which was originally made in the allotment order. In view of the subsequent events, the impugned order does not survive as on today.

¶27

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent corporation, the impugned order, dated 21.09.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent corporation. The respondent corporation, after giving an opportunity to

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶31

the writ petitioner may pass an order fixing the correct value of the land

¶32

and they may also consider any concession that may be available to the

¶33

writ petitioner as per the existing provisions and the scheme.

¶34

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

¶35

closed.

¶36

24.06.2022

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

gbg

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶42

¶43

1.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ariya Mangalam, Trichy-620 010.

¶44

¶45

5/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶48

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶49

gbg

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.12738 of 2011

¶51

24.06.2022

¶52

6/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arps Engineering v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arps Engineering v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. the Indian Hume Pipe Vs Twad Board, Urban Division

Gandhi Seva Sangam, Vs the District Collector

Chinnasamy, S/O.Late.Raman, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Therese Marry, Vs the Inspector General of

R.Pandiarajan Vs the District Collector

M.G. Motilal, Vs the Government of India