Madras High Court
A.Kalyanasundaram vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 28 July, 2023
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.32410 & 32418 of 2018 &
W.P.No.6705 of 2019 & W.P.No.8064 of 2023 &
W.M.P.Nos.37611 & 37615 of 2018
In W.P.No.32410 of 2018
A.Kalyanasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Rep. by its Chairman,
No.G 5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110 075.
2.Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
No.19, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram – 605 401.
3.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition),
National Highways No.45-A,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
4.District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order dated 26.3.2018 made in
Na.Ka.Thay.Nay.Nee A/A1/13/2017 passed by the 3rd Respondent quash
the same and forbear the respondents from forming four lane in Cuddalore
District, National Highways No 45-A, From Km 37/450 to Km 38/650; Km
39/950 to Km 42/350; Km 47/225 to Km 48/400 and Km 50/610 to Km
108/860(Villupuram-Puducherry- Cuddalore-Nagapattinam) through the
Petitioner's properties comprised in S.N0.6/8, S.No 113/1D1 and extent of
3465 Sq. Mt instead of expanding the existing road marked in Blue colour
in the sketch annexed in the petition originally aligned by the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
In W.P.No.32418 of 2018
R.Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Rep. by its Chairman,
No.G 5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110 075.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
2.Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
No.19, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram – 605 401.
3.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition),
National Highways No.45-A,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
4.District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.32418 of 2018:- Writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated
26.03.2018 made in Na.Ka.Thay.Nay.Nee A/A1/13/2017 passed by the
3rd Respondent quash the same and forbear the respondents from forming
four lane in Cuddalore District, National Highways No 45-A, From Km
37/450 to Km 38/650; Km 39/950 TO Km 42/350; Km 47/225 TO Km
48/400 and Km 50/610 TO Km 108/860(Villupuram-Puducherry-
Cuddalore-Nagapattinam) through the Petitioners properties comprised in
S.No.24/7B C.Mutloor Village instead of expanding the existing road
marked in Blue colour in the sketch annexed in the petition originally
aligned by the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
In W.P.No.6705 of 2019
G.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
No.19, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram – 605 401.
2.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition),
National Highways No.45-A,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
3.District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
4.Asst. Director of Survey,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1
and 2 to Survey the alignments in Option Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with the
affected buildings on the said alignments in B.Mutlur Village for formation
of four lane in Cuddalore District, National Highways No.45 -A through
the District Surveyors under the control of the respondents 3 and 4 by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 31/01/2019 before taking
any decision on the objections submitted by the petitioner as per the order
dated 09/10/2018 in W.P.No.27963 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents 1 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
For Respondents 2, 3 & 4 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.D.Ravichander,
Special Government Pleader
1.V.Kumaresan
2.R.Rajendran
3.Rahamadhunnisa
4.R.Vinothraja
5.K.P.Reguraman
6.P.Panneerselvam ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India,
No.10, Rai Sena Road,
New Delhi – 100 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
2.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition),
National Highways No.45-A,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
3.Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
No.19, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram – 605 401. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for records relating to
the impugned notification issued by the 1st respondent published in the
Gazette of India in S.O.1846 (E) dated 08.03.2017 the consequential
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 26.03.2018 Na.Ka A1
/ 11 / 2017 and the consequential impugned notification issued by the 1st
respondent in S.O. 1996 (E) dated 18.05.2018 published in the Gazette of
India and quash the same.
COMMON ORDER
W.P.Nos.32410 & 32418 of 2018 have been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 26.3.2018 made in
Na.Ka.Thay.Nay.Neea/A1/13/2017 passed by the 3rd Respondent and
forbear the respondents from forming four lane in Cuddalore District,
National Highways No 45-A, from Km 37/450 to Km 38/650; Km 39/950
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
to Km 42/350; Km 47/225 to Km 48/400 and Km 50/610 to Km 108/860
(Villupuram-Puducherry-Cuddalore-Nagapattinam) through the Petitioners'
properties comprised in S.N0.6/8 & S.No 113/1D1 to an extent of 3465 sq.
mt and comprised in S.No.24/7B C.Mutloor Village, instead of expanding
the existing road marked in Blue colour in the sketch annexed in the
petition originally aligned by the respondents.
2. W.P.No.6705 of 2019 has been filed for a direction to the the
respondents 1 and 2 to Survey the alignments in Option Nos. 1, 2 and 3
along with the affected buildings on the said alignments in B.Mutlur
Village for formation of four lane in Cuddalore District, National
Highways No.45 -A through the District Surveyors under the control of the
respondents 3 and 4 by considering the petitioner's representation dated
31/01/2019 before taking any decision on the objections submitted by the
petitioner as per the order dated 09/10/2018 in W.P.No.27963 of 2017.
3. W.P.No.8064 of 2023 has been instituted questioning the validity
of the notification issued by the first respondent published in the Gazette
of India S.O. 1846 dated 08.06.2017, the consequential impugned order
passed by the second respondent dated 26.03.2018 and the consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
notification issued by the first respondent dated 18.05.2018 published in
the Gazette of India.
4. The lands belonged to the petitioners were acquired. Notification
was issued. The petitioners have filed their objections under section 3C of
the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the objections and
passed orders under section 3C(2) of the Act. Thereafter, declaration under
section 3D(1) was made by the Central Government. Pursuant to the
declaration, the subject lands are vested with the Government and the
compensation due to the land owners were already deposited by the
authority competent.
5. The writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed under
section 3C of the Act mainly on the ground that their objections were not
considered subjectively and objectively and the orders impugned were
passed in a mechanical manner and thus, the proceedings are to be set
aside.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the
objections regarding realignment and the other alternatives provided by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
petitioners were not taken into consideration by the competent authorities.
Non consideration of the objections objectively becomes fatal, in view of
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
R.Natarajan & 10 others vs. Union of India & 2 others reported in 2010
(6) CTC 337. The petitioners relied on to the following paragraphs:
“22. After having gone through the entire facts of
the case and giving our anxious consideration in the
matter, we are of the considered view that the objections
filed by the Appellants have not been considered in its
right perspective and has not been disposed of by giving
reasons as contemplated under section 3-C(2) of the Act.
Moreover, admittedly, the copy of the order was neither
server nor was communicated to the Appellants. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, failed to consider this
aspect of the matter.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, these Appeals and
the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
Consequently, the order passed by the Competent
Authority under Section 3-C(2) of the Act and the
consequential orders are quashed. The matter is
remanded back to the Competent Authority of the
Respondent to consider the objections filed by the
Appellants under Section 3-C(2) of the Act, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
Competent Authority is directed to dispose of the same in
accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.
Needless to say that after complying with the requirements
of law, the Respondents shall proceed in the matter.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the
existing two lane roads were converted as four lane roads and therefore,
the necessity for bye pass road is to be determined by the competent
authorities. In the absence of taking any decision, the acquisition became
unnecessary and the authorities failed in their duty to consider the
objections in this perspective.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National
Highways Authority objected the said contention by stating that the
proposed projects are in progress. The projects are planned on long term
basis and the objections raised in this regard are beyond the purview of the
provisions of the Act and the land owners cannot raise such objections for
the purpose of stalling the entire projects. The projects are planned,
considering the future developments and therefore, the widening of the
existing road will not have any implication with reference to the proposed
bye-pass road. These aspects are within the exclusive purview of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
experts and the objections submitted by the land owners cannot be
considered by the authorities and the authorities have considered the other
objections raised by the land owners falling within the purview of section
3C of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the National Highways contended that the
compensation has already been deposited and now, the lands vested with
the Government and the project works are in progress. Thus, the
petitioners are at liberty to receive the compensation and approach the
arbitrator, if any grievance exists regarding the quantum of compensation
or otherwise.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the Government of Tamil Nadu raised an objection by stating that this
Court with reference to the scope of objections, considered the issue in the
case of Titanium Equipment & Anode Manufacturing Company Ltd., vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu & 3 others reported in 2018 (4) CTC 814 and the
relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“11. If the arguments of the petitioners' counsel is
scanned for its merit, it must be said that they never
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
came forward with a case that they have not been heard
under Rule 5(2) and Rule 5(3). And it is also their case
that they have volunteered to present 100 plus documents
in support of their objections. As stated already, no
authority is required to hold an enquiry in the nature of
a judicial proceeding to decide on the merit of the
objections of the land owners or the quality of materials
provided by them. From the Government's stand point,
notwithstanding the merit of the objections of the land
owners, there may stall be a larger public interest the
might outweigh the merit of the land owner's objection.
The Government, vested with power of eminent domain,
for advancing a larger public purpose cannot be
restricted by the objections of the land owners alone.
Within the limited space provided for pre-acquisition
hearing contemplated under Rule 5, the respondent has
fulfilled their statutory obligations. On this score, the
petitioners are bound to file W.P.No.27438 of 2014.
12. Turning now on the point of passing of the
interim award, the respondents justify it on the strength
of G.O.(Ms). No.88, Revenue [LA-I(1)] dated
21.02.2014, whereunder the Government took note of the
advent of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (Central Act 30/2013), and directed an interim
award be passed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
1894, and a final Award to be passed in terms of the
Central Act Right to Fair Compensation Act. This G.O.
(Ms). No.88 came for consideration in a batch of writ
petitions in W.P.Nos,27550 to 27553/2014 and others,
and this Court vide its Common Order dated 05.08.2015
had held:
“31. The Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition), MRTS Phase – II Extension,
Chennai – 600 004, has passed the
draft/interim award dated 15.09.2014 and
while arriving at the quantum of interim
compensation, the Special Tahsildar adopted
the provisions of the old Act and for that
purpose, has relied upon G.O.(Ms).No.88,
Revenue [LA-I(1)] dated 21.02.2014, which
he/she is under mandate to follow. Para 3(i)
of the said Government Order would state
among other things that the interim
compensation should be determined based on
the procedures already in vogue subject to
additional compensation being paid as per
the Right to Fair Compensation Act (new
Act). In the considered opinion of the Court,
in terms of Section 114(2) of the new Act,
land acquisition proceedings already
initiated under the old Act by invoking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
emergency provision is saved and
admittedly, no award under section 11 of the
Act has been passed and the new Act came
into force on 01.01.2014. Before taking
possession, the Collector including Deputy
Collector and any other officer specially
designated by the Government to perform the
functions of the Collector defined under
section 3(g) of the new Act, is bound to
follow Section 40(3) of the new Act and
thereafter, he is under mandate to follow
Section 40(5) and other provisions relating
to rehabilitation and resettlement.””
11. A counter filed by the Special District Revenue Officer, Land
Acquisition states that the notification under section 3D of the National
Highways Act, 1956 for formation of B.Mutloor Village was published in
the Govt. of India Gazette No.1843 of S.O.No.1996(E) dated 18.05.2018
and the same was published in the local Daily Newspaper on 21.07.2018
stating that all the land owners / interested persons are requested to appear
before the 3rd Respondent/ Competent Authority on the scheduled date and
time and to produce all the relevant records for determining the ownership
of the acquired land under section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
the petitioner in W.P.No.32418 of 2018 has not attended enquiry under
section 3(G)(3) of NH Act 1956, which was conducted by the third
respondent/Spl. DRO (LA) NH 45A, Cuddalore on 13.08.2018,
14.08.2018, 16.08.2018 & 18.08.2018. After completion of 3G(3) enquiry
the awards for Manjakuzhi, B.Mutloor and C.Mutloor villages were passed
by the Competent Authority / SDRO Cuddalore.
12. In the context of the grievances of the petitioners/land owners,
the procedures contemplated is to be applied in its letter and spirit. The
road projects are of paramount importance for economic and
developmental activities of our nation. Therefore, the courts have to
verify, whether the objections submitted by the land owners are considered
within the ambit of the provisions of the National Highways Act and any
objection raised beyond the scope of the Act need not be considered by the
competent authority. It is not as if each and every objections raised by the
land owners is to be considered by the authorities.
13. In the context of the above perspective, let us now consider the
scope of section 3C of the National Highways Act which speaks about
hearing of objections. Sub section 1 stipulates "Any person interested in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
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." Therefore,
the scope of objections, to be raised by the land owners are specifically
stipulated under section 3C(1) of the Act. When the statute contemplates
the nature of objections, which is to be considered by the authorities, the
authorities are not expected to consider the other objections, which all are
not falling within the ambit of section 3C(1) of the Act. The said provision
unambiguously indicates that the objections of the land owners must be
regarding to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in
that sub section.
14. Thus, beyond the scope of section 3C(1) of the Act, if any other
objections regarding alignment, alternative suggestions or planning if any
submitted by the land owners, need not be considered by the competent
authorities as such objections are beyond the scope of section 3C(1) of the
National Highways Authority Act. In the event of considering those
objections, the land owners are virtually entering into the arena of the
scheme of the report of the technical experts, which is impermissible. The
High Court, while exercising the powers of judicial review, cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
ordinarily interfere with the experts opinion, which became final. High
court cannot act as an expert body.
15. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which a decision
has been taken by the competent authorities in consonance with the
statutes and rules in force, but not the decision itself. Thus, the expansion
of the scope of the provisions relating to the objections to be made by the
land owners would cause prejudice to the interest of the public projects to
be executed as per the time durations.
16. In the present case, the petitioners have submitted their
objections which were considered by the authority competent and
admittedly an order under section 3C(2) was passed by the authorities and
communicated to the land owners. Thereafter, the authorities have issued a
declaration under section 3D(1) of the Act and thus, the land is vested with
the Government. Section 3D(4) of the Act unambiguously stipulates that "a
declaration made by the Central Government under Sub-section(1) shall
not be called in question in any Court or by any other authority.” Thus, the
declaration issued by the Central Government becomes final and therefore,
the parties are at liberty to raise objections, if any relating to the quantum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
of compensation under section 3G(5) of the Act. In the present case,
admittedly the declaration was already made under section 3D(1) of the
Act and the amount of compensation determined was also deposited.
17. This being the factum, the petitioners are at liberty to receive the
compensation by approaching the authorities and therefore, if any
grievance exists regarding the quantum of compensation, they are liberty to
file an application under section 3G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator
who in turn shall conduct an enquiry in the manner contemplated under the
Act.
18. In respect of the Judgment relied on by the petitioners, in the
said case, the copy of the order passed under section 3C(2) was not
communicated to the land owners therein. In the said context, the Division
Bench of this Court has considered the grounds raised by the appellants
therein. However, in the present case, the objections were considered with
reference to section 3C(1) of the Act and admittedly, the order was passed
by the authority under section 3C(2) and the said order was communicated
to the land owners. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable to the
petitioners.
19. In view of the facts and circumstance, this Court do not find any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
infirmity with the land acquisition proceedings and consequently, the writ
petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
20. It is clarified that the compensation amount has already been
deposited in the account of Special DRO, Land Acquisition.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners
have not received the award. However, the learned counsel for the
respondents states that it was communicated. If at all, such awards are not
received by the petitioners, they are at liberty to collect a copy of the same
from the authorities concerned.
28.07.2023
nl
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
1.National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
Rep. by its Chairman,
No.G 5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110 075.
2.Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI),
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
No.19, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram – 605 401.
3.The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition),
National Highways No.45-A,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
4.District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
District Collectorate,
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32410 of 2018etc.,batch
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
nl
W.P.Nos.32410 & 32418 of 2018 &
W.P.No.6705 of 2019 &
W.P.No.8064 of 2023 &
W.M.P.Nos.37611 & 37615 of 2018
28.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
