Madras High Court
Dr.A.Rengalakshmi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 6 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
Dr.A.Rengalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu
represented by Principal Secretary
Highways and Minor 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. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the proceeding of the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.D1/15675/2014 Dt 21.07.2020 signed on 22.07.2020 quash the same,
relating to the petitioner herein consequently direct the respondents to shift
the alignment of the proposed road in question on the petitioner's land in
S.No.276/1 as indicated in the sketch submitted by the petitioner's
representations/sketch dated 10.06.2020, 17.08.2020 and 12.02.2021.
For Petitioner :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.
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
the petitioner submitted her objections. The petitioner, while submitting her
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 petitioner mainly targeted the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent on the ground that the second
respondent is not vested with the jurisdiction to reject the objections given
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
by the petitioner. 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
petitioner 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 petitioner in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
Government and no one else will have the power to pass such an
order rejecting the objections.”
8. It is clear from the above that the second respondent has exceeded
his jurisdiction in rejecting the objections made by the petitioner 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 petitioner and Highways
Department and to consider the objection of the petitioner, in accordance
with the guidelines issued by this Court in the judgment stated supra and
proceed further in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) No.6521 of
2021 is closed.
06.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
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 Minor 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
Dr.Rengalakshmi v. The Government of Tamilnadu
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
4.The Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition Officer)
Outer Ring Road, Sivakasi
Virudhunagar District.
W.P.(MD)No.8655 of 2021
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
