Madras High Court
) S.R.Tamilmani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 July, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD) No.3788 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
1) S.R.Tamilmani
2) Murali Manoj
3) M/s.Moorthy Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd.,
a company incorporated under
Companies Act in its registration
No.U22219TN2010PTC075305
having its registered office at
No.2/2258, Nehru Colony, Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District. ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Highways and Smaller Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Revenue Officer /
Land Acquisition Officer,
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
3.The Divisional Engineer,
(Construction and Maintenance),
Highways Department,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Outer Ring Road, Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the proceeding of the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.D1/15675/2014 dated 21.07.2020 signed on 21.07.2020 quash the
same, relating to the petitioners herein consequently direct the
respondents to shift the alignment of the proposed road in question on
the petitioners's land in S.No.259/1 as indicated in the sketch submitted
and marked in violet color as shown in the petitioners's representations/
sketches dated 10.06.2020 and 28.08.2020.
For petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Government Advocate
******
ORDER
The subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition is the
impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.07.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
2. The fourth respondent issued a notice under Section 15(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on
29.05.2020. The enquiry was fixed on 10.06.2020. On receipt of the
notice, the petitioners submitted their objections. The petitioners, while
submitting their objections, also stated that there is an effective
alternative alignment which can be taken into consideration by the
respondents.
3. The second respondent considering the objection,s had chosen
to issue the impugned proceedings dated 21.07.2020 rejecting the
objections given by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. Heard Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
5. Even though submissions were made touching upon the merits
of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly targeted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
impugned proceedings of the second respondent on the ground that the
second respondent is not vested with the jurisdiction to reject the
objections given by the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that
the second respondent ought to have merely forwarded the objections of
the Government and the Government should take into consideration the
objections given by the petitioners and the reply given by the Highways
Department and only thereafter, a notification can be issued under section
15(1) of the Act. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his
submissions, brought to the notice of this Court the judgment made in
M.Lenin Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Highways and Minor Ports Department
reported in (2020) 8 MLJ 152.
6. In the considered view of this Court, there is no requirement to
go into the merits of the case and this Court is inclined to interfere with
the impugned proceedings of the second respondent on the ground of
jurisdiction.
7. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely
covered by the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
in the case of M.Lenin Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (cited
supra). The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“(6) ...
(a) Whether the 2nd respondent was competent to pass orders
after conducting enquiry under Section 15(3) of the Act read
with Rule 5(3) of the Rules? And;
....
(10) This Court has repeatedly held that the 2nd respondent
can only conduct an enquiry by receiving the objections of the
land owners and the views of the Department and the entire
records must be submitted thereafter to the Government. On
such submission, it is for the Government to take an
independent decision. The 2nd respondent cannot pass any
order rejecting the objections and it will be beyond the power
and jurisdiction of the 2 nd respondent to do so. In spite of
repeated orders passed by this Court, the mistake keeps
recurring in every case and it is found in many cases that the
authority conducting an enquiry under Section 15(3) of the Act
r/w Rule 5(3) of the Rules keeps passing orders rejecting the
objections. Every time, this is interfered by this Court and the
authority do not seem to rectify their mistakes.
(11) The only authority who can consider and accept or reject
the objections is the Government. The Government is the
acquiring body and therefore the Act is vesting such a power
only on the Government and no one else will have the power to
pass such an order rejecting the objections.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
8. It is clear from the above that the second respondent has
exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the objections made by the
petitioners instead of forwarding the same to the Government. The
impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction and accordingly, the
same is hereby quashed.
9. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to conduct
the enquiry afresh, under Section 15(3) of the Act r/w Rule 5(3) of the
Rules, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and
Highways Department and to consider the objections of the respective
petitioners, in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the
judgment stated supra and proceed further in accordance with law.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) No.3788 of
2021 is closed.
02.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
sts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Highways and Smaller Ports Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The District Revenue Officer /
Land Acquisition Officer,
Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Divisional Engineer,
(Construction and Maintenance),
Highways Department,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
4. The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition Officer),
Outer Ring Road, Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sts
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.4672 of 2021
Dated:
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
