Madras HC slams SIPCOT for failing to pay land donors

The litigation costs should be recovered from the law officer, attached to SIPCOT, for giving an opinion against releasing the compensation, a division bench of Justices said.

Published: 20th January 2019 03:49 AM  |   Last Updated: 20th January 2019 03:49 AM   |  A+A-

Madras HC building (Photo | EPS)

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has slammed State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) for failing to pay the compensation due to persons from whom land was acquired for its Sriperumbudur unit, 20 years ago.

The litigation costs should be recovered from the law officer, attached to SIPCOT, for giving an opinion against releasing the compensation, a division bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose said.

The lands were acquired in 1998 and they were being made to run from pillar to post to get the meagre compensation of Rs 10,465 per cent for the past 20 years, If this is going to be the situation, how people will have faith in the system, the bench said.

The bench directed SIPCOT to file a report with details of the expenses incurred in moving an appeal before the Supreme Court seeking modification of its order, which directed immediate disbursement of the compensation.

The bench also ordered the appearance of SIPCOT Managing Director on January 21 with the details of cost of acquisition and rates at which they were given to industries.

The matter relates to acquisition of 326 acres from 126 persons at Sriperumbudur in Kancheepuram district. Originally, the land acquisition officer fixed the compensation at Rs 400 per cent. Aggrieved, the landowners moved the court and allowing their pleas, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs 3,500 per cent. Challenging this, the authorities approached the High Court which fixed the value at Rs 10,465 per cent after deduction of 33 per cent towards development charges, on August 3, 2012.

Challenging this, SIPCOT approached Supreme Court claiming there was a calculation error in the High Court order. However, it was directed to approach the High Court with a review application.