AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions
to quash those proceedings on various grounds.
Since identical grounds have been raised in all these cases, the same are being disposed of by the following common order.
For the convenience, I shall refer the facts in Writ Petition No.6799 of 1997. It is stated that the villagers of Pottaneri including the petitioners
are small farmers and the agriculture is sole source of their livelihood. The entire lands of Pottaneri are subject matter of impugned land acquisition
for the purpose of establishing coke-oven plant by a public limited company by name Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (SISCOL) co-
promoted by Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) and Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., (LMW). An extent of 523 acres of
land had been acquired already in or about 1991-92 for the said company out of which an extent of 120 acres alone was utilised by it so far and
rest of the lands are used for plantation of Teak Tree which is a long term crop which fact would go to show that there is no immediate need of any
more land for the said company in near future. It is further stated that the requisitioning body viz., third respondent in their letter dated 6.12.1996
requested to drop the subject acquisition proceedings. Similar request was made to TIDCO on 4.2.1997 which is followed by another
communication dated 15.3.1997, accordingly the award enquiry was also adjourned sine-die. While so, the first respondent issued four
Government Orders dated 28.3.1995 in G.O-2 (d) No.66, 67,68 and 69 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act)
mentioning the entire land of the villagers are needed for setting up of a Coke-oven plant by SISCOL measuring an extent of 156 acres situate in
Pottaneri village. The substance of Section 4(1) notification which was published in two dailies are not having circulation in the locality. Further
paper publication did not contain true version of form as it was silent as to delegation of power to act as a Collector. In such circumstance, having
no other effective remedy they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions.
On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries Department has filed a counter affidavit disputing various
averments made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Managing Director, SISCOL has applied for acquisition of 65.88.0 hectares of land in
Pottaneri village, Mettur Taluk for Coke-oven plant. The Government approved the proposal of TIDCO for implementing the Coke Oven Project
by SISCOL in G.O.Ms. No. 701, Industries Department, dated 11.12.1992. As per the Government order land acquisition proceedings were
initiated. Section 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette on 19.4.1995 and in dailies and in the locality. Section 5-A enquiry
notice was served on the land owners and 5-A enquiry was conducted on 25.7.1995 and 26.7.1995. The declaration u/s 6 of the Act was
published in the gazette on 14.5.1996 and in dailies and in the locality on 15.5.1996 and 16.5.1996 respectively. The award enquiry was posted
for hearing on 21.2.1997 and it was adjourned to 3.4.1997 due to administrative reasons.
It is further contended that all the three stages of the project viz., Pig Iron Plant has been completed and commenced production, the Sinter
plant is expected to commence soon and construction work relating to steel melting and steel rolling mill is going on and it is expected to
commence the production by end of 1998. According to the provisions of the Pollution Control Board, the extent of 30 per cent of the total area
should be utilised for raising green trees to arrest the air pollution. As such about 180 acres of lands out of 520 acres will have to be utilised for
raising green patch. The remaining extent is quite necessary for the plant... Electricity substation, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses
etc. Regarding two letters sent by the third respondent for dropping the acquisition proceedings, it is stated that, it is only a signal to the
Government to accelerate the land acquisition proceedings and not for any other purpose. The notification published contain all the informations
which would facilitate the public and the land owners to know about the acquisition. Further, the land acquisition proceedings relating to Pig Iron
Project was over when the acquisition for coke oven project reached 5-A enquiry stage. Therefore the Government have authorised the Special
Tahsildar, Coke Oven Project to act as Collector under the provisions of the Act. The post is the same and the work done by the Special
Tahsildar is only for the same applying body. Regarding authorisation of the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that in the form prescribed by the
Government for publication of the notification u/s 4(1) powers have been vested with the persons appointed as Land Acquisition Officer to
exercise the powers indicated u/s 4(2) of the Act. Under the same notification, the Special Tahsildar has been appointed as Collector u/s 3(c) of
the Act. The substance of the notification is that the Special Tahsildar will exercise the powers indicated u/s 4(2) of the Act. There appears no
need to publish the full version of the said notification. It is also not required for the public. What are all needed for the public have been furnished
in the Tamil version of the notification. It is further stated that, since the acquisition is for a public purpose and the mandatory provisions have been
fully complied with, there is no merit in these writ petitions, accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the same.
The third respondent requisitioning body has also filed similar and identical counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate
General for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the third respondent.
Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, after taking me through the entire acquisition proceedings has raised
the following contentions:
(i) Inasmuch as the third respondent has utilised only an extent of 120 acres out of an extent of 523 acres acquired for the very same purpose, the
present acquisition of 156 acres is unnecessary and unwarranted. In other words, according to him, there is no need of any lands for the
requisitioning body, accordingly the present acquisition is not be warranted;
(ii) Inasmuch as specific authorisation authorising the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to function as Collector u/s 3(c) of the Act, do not find
place in the Tamil newspaper, it is not open to the second respondent to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, accordingly the same are
vitiated;
(iii) The substance of Section 4(1) notification was not published in the locality, which is a mandatory, accordingly the acquisition proceedings are
liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior counsel appearing for third
respondent would submit that the entire lands, viz., 520 acres have been properly utilised for erection of the plants as well as for installation of
Electricity sub-station, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses etc., They also contended that, as per the directions of the Pollution
Control Board an extent of 30 per cent of the total area should be utilised for raising green trees to arrest air pollution. Accordingly, the
Government is convinced about the requirement of further lands for completion of the entire project. They also contended that, omission of specific
reference u/s 3(c) in the publication in Dina Thanthi would not affect the acquisition proceedings. They further contended that, inasmuch as the
acquisition of lands is for a public purpose and after declaration by the Government, it is not open to this Court to go into the matter and take a
decision, accordingly they prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
Regarding the first contention, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has highlighted that, initially an extent
of 523 acres had been acquired in the very same village in or about 1991-92 for the said Company and out of which an extent of 120 acres alone
were utilised by them so far and rest of the lands are used for plantation of teak trees which is a long term crop which fact would go to show that
there is no immediate need for the land in near future. If so, according to him the present action of the respondents in acquiring another 156 acres is
unwarranted. In this regard, by pointing out Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act, he would contend that, only the actually required land alone is
to be acquired and not the entire land. In order to appreciate his contention, it is better to refer Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act.
Section 4; Publication of Preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon: (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the
Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication
and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.
Section 6: Declaration that land is required for a public purpose: (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate
Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5-A, Sub-section (2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose,
or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly
authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of an land covered by the
same notification u/s 4, Sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) u/s 5-
A, Sub-section (2).
He very much emphasised the word used ""likely to be needed"" in Section 4(1) and ""any particular land is needed"" in Section 6. It is true that the
Government is expected to acquire land only to the extent to be needed for public purpose and after enquiry it is open to the Government to
confine it to particular land which is needed for a public purpose and proceed thereafter. In this regard, it is useful to refer the particulars furnished
by the first respondent in the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries Department. It is specifically stated that, all
the three stages of the project, viz., (i) Pig Iron Plant has been completed and commenced the production; (ii) Sinter plant is expected to
commence soon; and (iii) construction work relating to steel melting and steel rolling mill is going on and it is expected to commence production by
end of 1998. It is also stated that according to the directions of the Pollution Control Board the extent of 30 per cent of the total area should be
utilised for raising green trees to arrest air pollution. The Pollution Control Board has also furnished specifications of plant to be planted for this
purpose. Learned Advocate General has also brought to my notice certain conditions to be fulfilled by the third respondent company, issued by
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 23.11.1998. Among other conditions, it is stated that,
A green belt of adequate width and density should be developed using native plant species, within and around plant premises in consultation with
State Forest Department. A norm of 2000-2500 Plants per ha may be followed. A minimum of 25% of the total land acquired should be
developed as green belt. (As per EMP about 40 ha have been earmarked for green belt)
Accordingly, the Government has undertaken planting of trees as directed around the factory side. In this manner about 180 acres of land out of
total extent of 520 acres will have to be utilised for raising green belt. It is further seen from the information furnished by the respondents that,
remaining extent is quite necessary for the plant, electricity sub-station, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses etc., Accordingly, the
entire extent already acquired is quite necessary for fulfilling the requirements of Pollution Control Board, the direction of Government of India,
Ministry of Environment and Forest and also for construction of projects. After taking note of all the above aspects, the Government of Tamil
Nadu in their letter No.475, Revenue, dated 19.5.1997 granted permission to hold the entire extent for the project purpose and exempted under
the provisions of Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. No doubt, the learned senior counsel by relying on a Division Bench
decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, as well as decision of the Apex Court reported
in Jainulabudeen and Others Vs. Government of T.N. and Others, would contend that the present acquisition is unwarranted. In the Gujarat case
their Lordships in the Division Bench after referring to Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and after noting that there is no specific scheme by the Gujarat
Housing Board to proceed further and also of the fact that no steps have been taken for publication of notification u/s 4(1) ultimately quashed the
acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the entire 520 acres acquired in the year 1991-92 are being utilised and the respondents have furnished more
details regarding their project and utilisation of the entire land, the Gujarat case is not applicable to our case. For the very same reason the decision
of the Apex Court referred above is also not helpful to our case. In such circumstance, I do not find any substance in the first contention.
Coming to the second contention, it is the specific grievance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that, in the paper publication,
particularly in Dina Thanthi there is no reference with regard to authorisation u/s 3(c) of the Act. It is true that, in the notification the Government
have to authorise any Officer to perform the functions provided u/s 4(2) as well as Section 3(c).
Section 3(c): Speaks about Collector: The expression ""Collector"" means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any
officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. Section 4, Sub-clause (2)
enables the Land Acquisition Officer or other officer authorised to enter upon land.
Section 4(2): Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his
servants and workmen-
to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;
to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adopted for such purpose;
to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the
levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence of jungle.
There is no dispute that in order to complete the acquisition proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer or person authorised must be empowered to
do all the provisions of the Act by specific authorisation by the Government. In 4(1) notification issued in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette there is
no specific authorisation by them under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and under Clause (c) of Section 3. The relevant portion published in the
gazette is as follows:
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby
authorises the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Pig Iron Project, Mettur and his staff and Workmen to exercise the powers conferred by the
said sub-section: and, under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act. The Governor of Tamilnadu hereby appoints the Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), Pig Iron Project to perform the functions of the Collector u/s 5-A of the said Act.
In the notification published in Dina Thanthi it is true that authorisation u/s 3(c) is not specifically mentioned. The relevant portion is as follow:
By pointing out the above position, viz., absence of specific authorisation authorising the second respondent to exercise and act as Collector u/s
3(c), it is contended that the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated. In support of the said contention, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners have very much relied on an unreported decision of P.D. Dinakaran, J. in W.P. No. 13216 of 1992 dated
22.12.1998 and decision of K.S Bakthavatsalam, J. reported in A. Vijayarangam and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 Writ L.R. 518. It is true
that a similar question was considered by learned brother P.D. Dinakaran, J. in that decision. ''After considering the publication of 4(1) notification
in the gazette as well as in the newspapers the learned Judge has concluded.
But, to hold an enquiry in pursuance of the notification u/s 4(1), the second respondent also ought to have been authorised u/s 3(c) of the Act, to
discharge the duties of the Collector, for conducting the enquiry, as contemplated u/s 5-A of the Act.
In the absence of any delegation or authorisation by the Government, authorising the second respondent to discharge the duties of the Collector,
any act done or purported to be done by the second respondent on behalf of the Collector is, per se, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and
therefore, it shakes down the very basis of the acquisition proceedings, assuming, said to have been built carefully at every stage.
After holding so, quashed the entire acquisition proceedings on that ground. In order to appreciate the said contention, I once again refer that the
authorisation u/s 4(2) as well as 3(c) were specifically mentioned in the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Accordingly,
it amply shows that the Government have specifically authorised the second respondent both under Sections 4(2) and 3(c) of the Act. Without
specific permission or authorisation it would not be published in the gazette. The only defect even according to the learned senior counsel is that,
authorisation u/s 3(c) is missing in the notification published in Tamil daily (Dina Thanthi). It is also clear that, u/s 4 of the Act, whenever it appears
to the appropriate Government any land is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose that should be acquired in the manner indicated
therein. u/s 4(2) of the Act any Officer either generally or specially authorised by the Government is given the powers to perform the functions
mentioned u/s 4(2) of the Act. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that in the Gazette notifications published in our case there is a reference to the
conferment of powers of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition-second respondent herein) u/s 3(c) of the Act. Though in the
paper publication the conferment of the powers u/s 3(c) is not specifically mentioned, once the powers of Collector has been validly conferred on
the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) by a specific order by the Government, as seen from the Gazette notification, I am of the view that he
would be empowered to perform the functions of the Collector under the provisions of Act. Mere omission in the vernacular daily would not affect
the acquisition proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) At this juncture learned Advocate General has brought to my notice G.O.Ms. No. 1317,
Revenue, dated 27.9.1986. Since the said Government Order clarifies the position in dispute, the said order is extracted hereunder:
G.O.Ms. No. 1317, Revenue, dated 27th September, 1986.
READ AGAIN:
(1) G.O.Ms. No. 821, Revenue, dated 4th April, 1975.
READ ALSO:
(ii) From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Lr. No. K.Dis.S/53929/85, dated 21st October, 1985.
ORDER:
The Forms 2A and 2B prescribed in the G.O. first read above and incorporated in Appendix XII in Part IV of the Land Acquisition Manual and
Appendix XII to Chapter VII of the Revenue Standing Orders, Volume II, the Land Acquisition Officer is authorised to exercise the Powers
conferred by Section 4(2) of the Act. In cases where urgency provision is invoked, the present forms give rise to some ambiguity as they require
appointment of Land Acquisition Officer u/s 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct 5-A
enquiry while the next para dispenses with 5-A enquiry.
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that a reading of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land
Acquisition Act shows that it is not for the purpose of performing the functions u/s 5-A of the Act alone, an officer is appointed as Collector but
also to perform all other functions of a Collector under the said Act. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has
therefore suggested that the expression ""Section 5-A of occurring in Forms 2-A and 2-B are not necessary and that they may be deleted.
3...
As requested, I have carefully perused the said Government Order. It clearly shows that there is no necessity to mention the conferment of powers
of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to perform the function of Section 5-A of the Act and once the Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition) has been vested with the powers of the Collector he can perform all the functions of the Collector under the provisions of the
Act. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General as well as Mr. R. Gandhi learned senior counsel appearing for third respondent, the
question whether such powers have been conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has to be examined with reference to the records
and when in the gazette notification there is reference to the conferment of powers of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar, non-mentioning of the
same is the vernacular paper, particularly in ""Dina Thanthi"" would not take away the powers conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
under the provisions of the Act. In other words, when such conferment is there in the records and the same have been correctly shown in the
gazette notification, mere omission with regard to Section 3(c) in the vernacular paper would not affect the subsequent proceedings [Italics
supplied] as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The clarification mentioned above was not brought to the notice of P.D.
Dinakaran, J. As already stated, once the powers of the Collector are conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) he would be entitled
to perform the functions of the Collector under the provisions of the Act including the powers of the Collector u/s 5-A of the Act. In any event the
difference in the wording between the gazette notification and the paper publication would not vitiate the land acquisition proceedings as it is only a
procedural irregularity. Further more, the purpose is concerned with the particulars regarding the purpose for acquisition, extent, survey number
etc., and there is no specific requirement under the statutory provision to mention the conferment of powers of the Collector in all the notifications.
On this ground, the decision of P.D. Dinakaran, J. in Writ Petition No. 13216 of 1992 is not applicable to the facts of our case.
Learned senior counsel has also very much relied on the decision of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. reported in A. Vijayarangam and Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu 1992 W. L.R. 518. The perusal of the said decision clearly shows that there was no authorisation at all either u/s 4(2) or u/s 3(c) and
both were absent in the gazette notification as well as in the vernacular dailies. It is also clear from the said decision that there is no specific
conferment of power in favour of the Land Acquisition Officer in the said case. In the absence of such particulars in the said decision. I am of the
view that the decision of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. is also not helpful to the petitioners case. In our case there is no dispute that specific authorisation
by them u/s 4(2) and u/s 3(c) is available in the records and rightly mentioned in the gazette notification, omission regarding Section 3(c) is only in
the vernacular daily. In such circumstance, I reject the second contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
Regarding the third contention, by pointing out that only the substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality by tom-tom and
no details regarding affixure in the Office of the Tahsildar and Collector in Form III-A notice, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
contended that, the substance of 4(1) notification has not been made in consonance with the mandatory provisions and requirements of the Act and
Rules made thereunder and therefore liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention learned senior counsel has also relied on several
decisions. There is no dispute that the publication of substance of 4(1) notification in the locality as provided under the Rule is a must and failure to
do the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Since the said proposition of law is clear, I am not referring all the decisions cited on this
ground. Even on merits, it is admitted by the petitioners themselves (vide ground No.(e) that the substance of the publication was published in the
locality by tomtom and only the other requirement as per Rule 2 - the substance of notification u/s 4(1) shall be published at a convenient places in
the locality, copies therefore fixed up in the office of the Collector and Tahsildar. The files produced by the respondents 1 and 2 clearly show that
the same was effected in accordance with the said Rules. In the light of the factual information, I am unable to accept the last submission made by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
In the light of the above factual position, it is not for this Court to say that there was no need to acquire the petitioners lands for the project and
the remaining land was sufficient. As rightly contended by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, that there is no
dispute regarding public purposes, accordingly publication of declaration u/s 6 accords conclusiveness to public purpose. While so, as observed
by their Lordships in Scindia Employees'' Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , whether a particular land is needed for public purpose or
not is to be decided by the appropriate Government and the court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the appropriate Government. Following
the said decision of the Supreme Court. Division Bench of this Court in The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. The Coimbatore Diocese
Society 1997 W.L.R. 777, their Lordships have observed.
So long as the public purpose subsists, the exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be questioned. Publication of declaration u/s 6 is
conclusive evidence of public purpose. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the Government have exercised the power
of eminent domain and had published the notification u/s 4(1) and after conducting enquiry u/s 5-A, declaration u/s 6 has been made, which is
conclusive evidence of public purpose.
The same view has been expressed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in K. Raveendranathan Pillai v. State of Kerala AIR 1999 Ker.
Even regarding the objection that there is no specific authorisation u/s 3(c), admittedly none of the petitioners have raised any objection before
the 5-A enquiry proceedings. If the petitioners are really been prejudiced by the non-specification of Section 3(c) in vernacular dailies they should
have taken steps to quash the notification on that ground within a reasonable time. Even otherwise, a formal defect in publication is mere irregularity
and it does not vitiate the validity of the notification. Regarding some defect in the 4(1), notification, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Writ
Petition No. 134 of 1959 dated 8.8.1960 (Supreme Court on Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 1950 - 90 page 771) it is stated that the
purpose of the notification u/s 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if
necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adopted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only u/s 6
that a firm declaration has to be made by the Government that the land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a
public purposes or for a Company. What was a mere proposal u/s 4 becomes the subject-matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition under the
Act. Hence, it is not correct to say that any defect in the notification u/s 4 is fatal to the validity of the proceedings. It is also clear from the
information furnished by the third respondent, the area acquired for the project has been assessed by the experts in soil nature, taking into account
various process for which the acquired lands will be completely used. Therefore, according to them the entire area notified are essentially required
for the successful completion of the project. Further, as already stated, 1/3rd of the extent acquired will have to be set apart for fulfilment of
conditions prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. It is also clear that, the coke oven plant is must for implementation of Pig Iron Project in
view of the excess cost involved in the import of industrial coke oven form foreign countries at the depletion of foreign exchange reserve to a large
extent. The coke oven plant will serve not only for the conversion of local into industrial coke but also will be useful for the production of
electricity.
In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents 1
and 2. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
In view of dismissal of the main writ petitions, connected W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.