Madras High Court
N.Satha (Died) vs Union Of India on 29 August, 2023
2023/MHC/4455
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.877 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9169 of 2021
1.N.Satha (died)
2.S.Nagamani
3.S.Subramanian ...Appellants
[Appellants 2 to 3 are impleaded as legal heris of deceased
first appellant, vide Court order dated 27.01.2017]
/Vs./
1.Union of India,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport & Highways,
(Dept. of Road Transport & Highways)
New Delhi.
2.The Competent Authority &
Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition-National Highways, (L.A.-N.H.),
Tirunelveli.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.National Highways Authority of India,
Rep.by its Project Director,
Project Implementation Unit,
Plot No.112, Rahamath Nagar,
Palayamkottai,
Tiruenveli-627 002. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act,
to set aside the order dated 23.02.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.139 of 2008
on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Suri
For R2 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
For R3 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH , J.)
The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed
challenging the notification issued in terms Section 3-A(1) of the
National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'Act').
2.The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the property
admeasuring 60 cents in Survey No.549/5B, Agastheeswaram Village,
Kanyakumari District (hereinafter referred to as 'land in question').
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.There was a initial proposal for acquisition of the land in
2005, which according to the writ petitioner was not pursued. Thereafter,
the impugned notification dated 06.02.2007 came to be issued proposing
the acquisition of various parcels of land including the land in question.
4.The purpose of acquisition is for widening /four-laning as
well as maintenance, management and operation of National Highway
No.7 on the stretch of land from Km.203/000 to Km.232/000 (Madurai-
Kanyakumari Section) in Kanyakumari District.
5.Even prior to the institution of the writ petition, a notification
had come to be issued in terms of Section 3-C(1) of the Act calling for
objections from the persons interested in the land in question. To be
noted, the notification under Section 3-C(1) is not the subject matter of
challenge. The fact that the writ petitioner was well aware of such
notification, is clear from the position that the writ petitioner had filed
his objection dated 30.03.2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Inter alia, he states that the notification under Section 3-A(1)
of the Act is itself misconceived as the writ petitioner proposes to utilise
the land for constructing a star hotel. The sum and substance of the
objection reveals only private interest. Section 3-C(1) states that ') Any
person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date
of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A,
object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in
that sub-section'.
7.The purpose mentioned under Section 3-A(1) is specific to
'public purposes'. In the interest of clarity a notification under Section
3-A(1) may be issued only if there is satisfaction by the Central
Government that acquisition of the land is for public purposes only.
Thus, they would contend that the only objection put forth by the writ
petitioner is private interest, which would stand overridden by public
interest.
8.The specific stipulation in Section 3-C has not been satisfied
by the writ petitioner. We agree on this score since on perusal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
objections said to have been filed, we do not find any objection put forth
by the writ petitioner to the use of the land for public purposes
mentioned under Section 3-A(1). On the contrary, the writ petitioner
would maintain that the private interest in developing the property for
commercial purpose would stand compromised by the proposed
acquisition.
9.That apart, the Writ Court has proceeded on the fact that the
objection was listed for enquiry in terms of Section 3-C(2). In this case,
we had on the previous occasion called for records to satisfy ourselves
that notice for enquiry issued by the authority had in fact been served on
the petitioner. There is a specific finding of fact in this regard by the writ
Court at para 17 of order dated 23.02.2015.
10.The records produced today only establish despatch of
notice dated 21.04.2007 and despatch register, which has been produced
before the writ court establishes this position. However, we do not find
any acknowledgment or proof of service of the notice on the writ
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Pursuant to the enquiry conducted in terms of Section 3-
C(2), an order has been passed in terms of Section 3-C(3) on 04.06.2007
and there is an endorsement of despatch of this order as well. As in the
case of the enquiry notice, there is no proof of service available.
12.The learned Special Government Pleader would refer to
Office Memorandum issued pursuant to the Contact of Business Rules by
the State to say that the relevant Rules only require proof of despatch to
be maintained. All communication at the relevant point in time were
being sent only by ordinary post.
13.We are not in agreement that this is the proper procedure to
be followed. While undoubtedly, public purpose will outweigh private
interest in the matter of acquisition, this does not mean and cannot be
interpreted to understand that procedure set out in terms of Sections 3-A,
3-B and 3-C can be compromised in any manner.
14.In fact the absolute nature of acquisition under Section 3-D
would mean that the procedure set out in the provisions prior thereto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
particularly, Section 3-C, must be observed carefully and in full
compliance with the principles of natural justice.
15.Furthermore, Section 3-C(3) states that any order made by
the competent authority under Section 3-C(2) shall be 'final'. Though
such stipulation would not stand in the way of the intervention by the
writ Court, the finality accorded under the statute renders such burden
upon the authorities, more forcefully.
16.The aforesaid observations would not, however, stand to
benefit the writ petitioner in the present case, since the writ petitioner has
admittedly sent his objections and is well aware of the notification under
Section 3-C. He is also clearly aware of the order of the acquisition that
has been passed under Section 3-A(1). The records produced today
reveal that subsequent events including award of compensation in terms
of Section 3-C have been duly published in terms of provisions set out in
the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.Mr.Su.Srinivasan appearing for the third respondent would
submit that fixation of compensation was duly communicated to the writ
petitioner, who declined to accede to the same. It has thus been
deposited in the joint account. The petitioner is thus at liberty to
approach the authorities in regard to this aspect of the matter.
18.With the above observations, writ appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
29.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes
ta
To
The Competent Authority &
Special District Revenue Officer,
Land Acquisition-National Highways, (L.A.-N.H.),
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.877 of 2015
Dated:
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
