Madras High Court
D.Brilla David vs The Government Of India on 28 February, 2022
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
D.Brilla David .. Appellant in
W.A.No.364/2022
K.Gnanaprakasam .. Appellant in
W.A.No.366/2022
Vs
1.The Government of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways,
(Road Transport and Highways)
New Delhi.
2.The Competent Authority and
The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A),
National Highways Schemes,
Kanchipuram & Tiruvallur District,
At Kanchipuram,
Camp Office at Taluk Office Premises, 2nd Floor,
Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 056.
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A),
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
National Highways,
Tiruvallur District,
Taluk Office Premises, 2nd Floor,
Ponnamallee,
Chennai-600 056.
4.The National Highways Authority of India,
rep. by Project Director & General Manager,
SPIC Building,
Chennai-600 002.
5.The Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board,
rep. by Chairman & Managing Director,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindaripet, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
comm order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.27492 and 25373 of 2006.
For the Appellants : Mr.T.Karunakaran
For the Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan
Spl. Government Pleader (L.A)
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By these writ appeals, a challenge is made to the common
order dated 02.12.2021, by which two writ petitions were decided
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25373 and 27492 of 2006.
2. W.P.No.25373 of 2006 was filed to challenge the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
Notification S.O.697(E) published in the Gazette of India No.507,
dated 24.05.2005 issued by the first respondent, coupled with the
public notice dated 03.06.2005 and the proceedings dated
25.01.2006 issued by the second respondent with a request to the
competent authorities to carry out mutation of all revenue records
in respect of New Survey No.295/5B (Old Survey No.295/5)
measuring 500 square metres with building thereon situated at
Poonamalle Village in favour of the appellant Gnanaprakasam. In
the connected writ petition, being W.P.No.27492 of 2006, the same
challenge and the request was made.
3. It is a case where the land in question bearing Survey
Nos.295/5A and 295/5B was sought to be acquired by the National
Highways Authority of India under the National Highways Act, 1956
(for short, "the Act of 1956"). After completion of the proceedings,
an award was passed by the competent authority on 25.01.2006.
Out of the two writ petitioners, one writ petitioner had received the
compensation. Thereupon, the writ petitioners have filed the writ
petitions to challenge the award mainly on the ground that while
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
issuing the notification under Section 3(A)(1) of the Act of 1956, it
was shown to be for the purpose of widening of road, but finally
when the award was passed, it was shown to be for the purpose of
handing over to the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage
Board (for short, "the Board"). The issue raised by the writ
petitioners was as to whether the land acquired for construction and
widening of road could be handed over to the Board, for different
usage. The argument raised by the petitioners did not find favour
of the learned Single Judge.
4. It is the further argument of learned counsel for the
appellants that the land in question has not yet been utilized and,
therefore, the same is lying vacant.
5. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the issues
raised in the writ petitions have not been determined by the learned
Single Judge in reference to the jurisdiction of the National
Highways Authority of India to acquire the land under the Act of
1956 for the purpose other than for construction of road. It was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
even fortified by the award, wherein it is stated that the land is to
be handed over to the Board and also that the land is still lying
vacant. The appellants, accordingly, pray for restoration of land to
them. Thus, a challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge
has been made mainly on that ground.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants and also perused the materials available
on record.
7. The provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 are not
similar or pari materia to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, "the Act of 1894"). Rather, with the issuance of
notification for acquisition, followed by a notification under Section
3(D) of the Act of 1956, the land vests in the Central Government
free from all encumbrance.
8. The aforesaid aspect has been taken into consideration by
the learned Single Judge while dealing with the issues and it was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
held that the land was to be acquired for widening of the road,
however, finding that certain lands of the Board are also to be
acquired, thus, a meeting of the High-Level Committee was held. It
was resolved to allot alternate land to the Board and thereby use
their land for the road. On the aforesaid arrangement, the land in
question was acquired so that with the exchange of land with the
Board, the widening of the road can be carried out. The aforesaid
has been mentioned in the award. Otherwise, it could have been
arranged subsequent to the passing of the award. Thus, acquisition
of the land was for the purpose of widening of the road. Therefore,
ipso facto, we cannot agree with learned counsel for the appellants
that the acquisition of the land was beyond the scope and ambit of
the provisions of the Act of 1956.
9. It is not in dispute that the land is being utilized for laying
pipelines. The declaration under Section 3(D) of the Act of 1956 was
issued in the year 2006 i.e., almost 16 years back. An affidavit has
been filed by the Board to the effect that pipelines of 2000mm
diameter have been placed under the earth. Some encroachments
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
were put up on the land acquired by the respondents and on the
direction of this Court, those encroachments were removed.
10. Taking all the facts in totality and considering the
arguments of the appellants/writ petitioners, the writ petitions were
disposed of by the learned Single Judge with appropriate directions.
We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge so
as to cause interference in it. The acquisition of the land is almost
16 years back. In one case, admittedly, the writ petitioner/appellant
has accepted the compensation even before filing of the writ
petition and without any protest. In the other case, an appropriate
direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to approach
the authority with required documents insofar as the appellant in
W.A.No.364 of 2022, D.Brilla David, is concerned and if the
authority finds that the land belongs to the said writ petitioner, they
have been directed to disburse the compensation. It is submitted
on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners that the amount may be
lying in the bank account and earned interest. In such view of the
matter, the said writ petitioner may pursue the authorities for
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
payment of interest.
11. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we do not find
any ground to cause interference in the order of the learned Single
Judge and both the writ appeals fail. Accordingly, the writ appeals
are dismissed. No costs.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
28.02.2022 Index
: Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
To:
1.The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways,
(Road Transport and Highways)
New Delhi.
2.The Competent Authority and
The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A),
National Highways Schemes,
Kanchipuram & Tiruvallur District,
At Kanchipuram,
Camp Office at Taluk Office Premises, 2nd Floor,
Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 056.
3.The Special Tahsildar (L.A),
National Highways,
Tiruvallur District,
Taluk Office Premises, 2nd Floor,
Ponnamallee,
Chennai-600 056.
4.The Project Director & General Manager,
National Highways Authority of India,
SPIC Building,
Chennai-600 002.
5.The Chairman & Managing Director,
Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindaripet, Chennai-600 002.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.Nos.364 and 366 of 2022
28.02.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
