M.Saravanan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records of the 1^st respondent under G.O.Ms.No.96, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 14.06.2016 and consequential notices dated 23.08.2016 issued by the third respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 in respect of the petitioners’ lands comprised in S.Nos.223/2B2, 21/1, 223/2A, 223/2B2, 223/2A3, 18/2, 223/2B2, 223/2B1, 18/1 and 223/2B in Gurubarapalli Villages, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri Taluk and quash the same.

¶34

For petitioners : Mr.Pradeep.T. for M/s.Richardson Wilson

¶35

For respondents: Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Addl.G.P.

¶36

for RR-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6

¶37

Mr.Abishek Murthy, Standing Counsel for R-2

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the acquisition of the land which

¶41

the petitioners became the subsequent owners after Notification of

¶42

Page2 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 7224 of 2017

¶45

G.O.Ms.No.96, Industries Department (MIG-2), dated 14.06.2016 and the

¶46

consequential notice issued on 23.08.2016.

¶47

The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the lands acquired are agricultural lands which have been under the acquisition for industrial purposes under the Tamil Nad Land Acquisition for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the said Act is not safe under Section 105-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.

¶48

The issue raised in the Writ Petition had been given a quietus by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in “C.S.Gopalakrishnan etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others” by order dated 09.05.2023 and the issue raised therein was negatived by the Supreme Court in respect of the similar plea raised by the appellants in that case.

¶49

Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition, except the right of the land owners to seek for additional compensation if any the land owners deserve.

¶50

Therefore, the present Writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to resort for adequate compensation if they are so advised. The pendency of the present Writ

¶51

Page3 of 5

¶52

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

¶53

WP No. 7224 of 2017

¶54

Petition during the period, is to be excluded while reckoning limitation.

¶55

(G.J.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 11-03-2026

¶56

cs