P.Sathasivam, J. - (1.)The petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 on various grounds. In W.P.No. 13247/2001, the petitioner seeks to quash Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 3.11.1999 and Declaration dated 18.9.2000 as well as Award No. 1/2000 dated 30.12.2000 in so far as his land to an extent of 2.79.5 Hectares in Veerapuram village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District and prays for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings and restore the said extent of land to him.
(2.)The very same petitioner in W.P.No. 13248 of 2001 challenges Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of his land in 88, Thenmelpakkam village of an extent of 1.55.0 Hectares.
(3.)The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :- According to him, he purchased 4.34.5 hectares extent of land in Veerapuram and Thenmelpakkam villages, Chingleput Taluk in the year 1996 on a sale consideration of Rs. 70 lakhs. Of this land, 2.79.5 hectares are the subject-matter of W.P.No. 13247/2001 and 1.55.0 hectares are the subject-matter in W.P.No. 13248/2001. He had leased out the lands under acquisition to Blossoms Bio-tech Limited, Chennai 18 for 99 years and he is the Managing Director of the said company. They set up a Green House Farm to an extent of 7 acres for growing Orchids Tube Roses and Bananas for export purposes. They had spent a total sum of Rs. 55 lakhs. The company has invested more than Rs. 6 crores in the total unit and started exporting flowers on trial basis. The petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores from Central Bank of India, Coimbatore. The land is proposed to be acquired by a company called Mahindra Industrial Park Limited/third respondent herein. The funds for acqusition are not from public funds but from the company funds. Hence Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act alone applies. The previous consent and execution of agreement with Government of Tamil Nadu has not been complied with. There has been no publication of agreement violating Sections 41 and 42 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is being acquired for private company, developed and resold killing the main purpose of Government acquisition for real estate purposes. The objections of the petitioner were not referred to the requisitioning body. Further, this being company acquisition under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, no steps were taken for private negotiations between the parties. The entire land acquisition proceedings is illegal inasmuch Rule 4(i)(ii) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 has not been followed.