Madras High Court
Muthukannan vs The District Collector on 30 June, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.15720 of 2023
Muthukannan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai.
2.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Highways Department,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Highways Department,
Land Acquisition,
Madurai-20.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Madurai District.
6.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Highways Department,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 4 to 6
herein to re-survey the property in T.S.No.2, Ward No-E, Block C-7 in
Vadakar Nagar Village, Thirumangalam, Madurai District on the basis of
the letter, dated 29.06.2022 and 12.12.2022 of the second respondent and
the letter, dated 10.03.2023 of the fourth respondent herein and re-fix the
compensation to the petitioner's property to be acquired herein.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For Respondents :Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus
seeking a direction to the fourth to sixth respondents to re-survey the
property in T.S.No.2, Ward No.E Block C-7 in Vadakar Nagar Village,
Thirumangalam in Madurai District. The petitioner claims that such re-
survey should be done on the basis of letters addressed on 29.06.2022
and 12.12.2022 by the second respondent, Special District Revenue
Officer, Highways Department, who had issued the said letters to the
fourth respondent, Special Tahsildar, Highways Department, Land
Acquisition, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Heard Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents.
3.It is stated that compensation for acquisition of the land of the
petitioner should be re-worked. The land of the petitioner measuring
about 4 feet is sought to be acquired by the respondents for construction
of a fly-over between Tirumangalam Municipality Road (L.C-377) and
Thirumangalam Kallikudi Railway Station. The grievance of the
petitioner is that if that land is acquired, the petitioner will have to
demolish the staircase and put up a fresh staircase within his house.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner very categorically stated
that the petitioner has no grievance or objection against the acquisition of
the land.
5.Notices had been issued under Rule 19(5) of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 on 17.11.2021 itself. Objections were called for.
The petitioner had raised objections. But, the petitioner had also opted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for private negotiation so far as compensation is concerned.
6.It is very specifically stated on behalf of the respondents that the
petitioner did not produce necessary documents and did not appear for
the private negotiation. This forced the respondents to workout the
compensation by themselves.
7.It is the grievance of the petitioner that such compensation was
worked without issuing notice to the petitioner.
8.The notice to the petitioner is for appearance for private
negotiation. He had failed to do so. Then, the obligation of the
respondents is to workout the compensation. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by such compensation, the Act provides that he can proceed
before the District Collector seeking re-visitation of the compensation
amount. But the entire acquisition process cannot be stopped owing to
this particular fact. When necessary applications are filed, it should be
taken up in manner known to law and proceeded in manner known law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.When a right is sought by the petitioner, he should also examine
whether he had discharged his duty. The duty expected on the petitioner
was to appear during private negotiation. Very specific instructions are
given that he did not appear during the private negotiation and when he
appeared, he did not produce relevant documents. The petitioner will
have to suffer the fate of the compensation being worked out and that has
now been worked out. The petitioner may agitate in manner known to
law and in accordance with law. But a Mandamus certainly cannot be
issued for a project, which had commenced in the year 2020-2021 and at
the instance of the petitioner herein put to hold.
10.Let the acquisition proceed further. The land of the petitioner
can be specifically acquired. So far as compensation is concerned, the
petitioner may take it up in manner known to law.
11.In Dr.Abraham Patani of Mumbai and Another vs State of
Maharashtra and Other [2022 SCC Online SC 1143], the Supreme
Court had occasion to examine public interest versus private interest.
After examining in detail a string of judgments, the Supreme Court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
held that by no count, a private interest override public interest. That
was also an appeal, wherein, the appellant therein had questioned
acquisition of land required for construction of a fly over. Their
proposals were rejected by the Honourable Supreme Court and finally it
was held that public interest should override private interest. The
Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
“91. It is important for us to take stock of the nature of the
present dispute. The Appellants are private citizens who have valid
title and ownership over the land in question. Without doubt, their
personal and private rights are of great importance. In a democratic
society governed by the rule of law, the rights of an individual carry
immense importance and are the foundational blocks on which our
legal, social, and political milieu thrives. Under no circumstances
should the rights of individual citizens be trodden upon arbitrarily
and any curtailment of them must be scrutinized with utmost care.
92. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact
that in several situations, the needs of the many must outweigh
that of the few. We say so not with any fervour nor as a mantra,
but as a solemn acknowledgment of the realities of modern life.
The question of what constitutes “public interest” has been
contemplated upon multiple times and the history of this Court is
full of musings by different benches on the exact contours of this
phrase in the context of various situations and statutes.
93. In Manimegalai v. Special Tehsildar27, it was surmised
that:
“14. Similarly, public purpose is not capable of precise
definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of
the purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to
serve the general interest of the community as opposed
to the particular interest of the individual. Public
purpose broadly speaking would include the purpose in
which the general interest of the society as opposed to
the particular interest of the individual is directly and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vitally concerned. Generally, the executive would be the
best judge to determine whether or not the impugned
purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the
purview of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a Section of
the society may be public purpose when it is benefitted
by the acquisition. The acquisition in question must
indicate that it was towards the welfare of the people
and not to benefit a private individual or group of
individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition for
anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done
compulsorily.”
94. In B.P. Sharma v. Union of India28 the nebulous nature of
phrases such as “public interest” or “in the interest of the general
public” was commented upon, with the Court stating:
“15. …The phrase “in the interest of the general public”
has come to be considered in several decisions and it has
been held that it would comprise within its ambit
interests like public health and morals, economic
stability, stability of the country, equitable distribution
of essential commodities at fair prices for maintenance
of purity in public life, prevention of fraud and similar
considerations…”
95. This point was emphasized in Bihar Public Service
Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi29 as well, which held
that no strict definition for “public interest” existed:
“22. The expression “public interest” has to be
understood in its true connotation so as to give complete
meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The
expression “public interest” must be viewed in its strict
sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a
statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common
parlance, the expression “public interest”, like “public
purpose”, is not capable of any precise definition. It does
not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour
from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying
with time and state of society and its needs. It also
means the general welfare of the public that warrants
recognition and protection; something in which the public
as a whole has a stake.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
96. It is unnecessary to belabour the point. The proposition
is simply that the notion of public interest will necessarily reflect
the specificities of the situation at hand. In the present case, the
public interest which has been emphasized upon by Respondents is
the urgent need for the creation of a connecting road through the
Appellants' property. The need stems from the traffic congestion
caused on the route from the Mahakali Caves to the Central MIDC.
The lack of a direct linkage requires detours to be taken that
significantly increase commuting time and cause inconvenience to
the general public.
97. When the public interest is so clearly articulated and is
an urgent and pressing exigency, private interests must give way to
the extent required. This Court has acknowledged this before, such
as in Ramilila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India30:
“119. The right to freedom in a democracy has to be
exercised in terms of Article 19(1)(a) subject to public
order. Public order and public tranquillity is a function of
the State which duty is discharged by the State in the
larger public interest. The private right is to be waived
against public interest. The action of the State and the
Police was in conformity with law. As a large number of
persons were to assemble on the morning of 5th June,
2011 and considering the other attendant circumstances
seen in light of the inputs received from the intelligence
agencies, the permission was revoked and the persons
attending the camp at Ramlila Maidan were dispersed.”
(Emphasis Applied)
98. In K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,31 the
origins of “Eminent Domain” were traced and the ethos behind
acquisition of land by the government for public good was
discussed. The Court elaborated on this in the following terms:
“134. Hugo Grotius is credited with the invention of the
term “eminent domain” (jus or dominium eminens) which
implies that public rights always overlap with private
rights to property, and in the case of public utility, public
rights take precedence. Grotius sets two conditions on
the exercise of the power of eminent domain : the first
requisite is public advantage and then compensation
from the public funds be made, if possible, to the one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who has lost his right. Application of the above principle
varies from countries to countries. Germany, America and
Australian Constitutions bar uncompensated takings.
Canada's constitution, however, does not contain the
equivalent of the taking clause, and eminent domain is
solely a matter of statute law, the same is the situation
in United Kingdom which does not have a written
constitution as also now in India after the
44th Constitutional Amendment.”
(Emphasis Applied)
12.The dictum laid down is binding on this Court. The Writ
Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index :Yes / No 30.06.2023
Internet :Yes
NCC : Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai.
2.The Special District Revenue Officer,
Highways Department,
Madurai, Madurai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Highways Department,
Land Acquisition,
Madurai-20.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Madurai District.
6.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Highways Department,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.15720 of 2023
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
