Madras High Court
Nainar vs Ministry Of Road Transport And ... on 3 October, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
and WMP(MD) No.1223 of 2020
Nainar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary
Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi 110 001.
2.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Revenue department, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Project Director,
National Highway Commission,
At 112, Rahmath Nagar East,
Thoothukudi Road, Tirunelveli 11
4.The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli
5.The Divisional Engineer,
National Highway Department
Tamilnadu Salai Membattu Thittam – II
A-76/1 1st Floor 5th Cross Street
Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
6.The Special District Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquisition)
Tamilnadu Road Development Project-II
Tiruchirappalli ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the
respondents from acquiring the Well and Pump Room to lay four lane
road situated in Survey No.117/1 admeasuring 1 acre 31 cents comprised
in Aundipatti Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District which is
only source to fetch water for irrigation to the petitioner's property.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan for R2, R4, R6
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of
mandamus forbearing the respondents from acquiring well and pump
room belonging to the petitioner situated in S.No.117/1 admeasuring
1.31 acres comprised in Aundipatti Village, Tirunelveli District.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing, on 09.03.2020,
this Court passed the following order:
“Learned Standing Counsel for the Third
Respondent has filed a memo stating that there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
proposal for the National Highways Authority of
India to acquire the Petitioner's land and the
acquisition proceedings initiated is for the State
Highways Department.
2. In view of the memo filed by the
Learned Standing Counsel for the Third Respondent,
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the
Writ Petition may be dismissed as not pressed
against the First and Third Respondents and he has
made an endorsement to that effect, which is
recorded. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
as not pressed as against First and Third
Respondents.
3. Learned Government Advocate
appearing for the Second, Fourth and Sixth
Respondents, on instructions, states that the enquiry
which was fixed on 28.01.2020 has been adjourned
to 24.03.2020 and during that enquiry, the
Respondent shall consider the proposal to lay road
without causing hindrance to the Petitioner and
informs that notice for the enquiry would be issued
to the Petitioner.
4. The Second, Fourth and Sixth
Respondents shall file report of its outcome, on the
next hearing. Post the matter on 01.04.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
3. Pursuant to the above order, the Grievance Redressal
Committee issued notice to the petitioner and considered the request
made by the petitioner. The Grievance Redressal Committee through
proceedings dated 30.04.2020, rejected the request made by the
petitioner on the ground that the alignment cannot be changed and it is
not technically feasible to exclude the portion, where the wall and pump
rooms are situated. The outcome of the meeting of the Grievance
Redressal Committee was also served on the petitioner.
4. A report has also been filed in this regard by the 6th
respondent and the relevant portion are extracted hereunder:
“I submit that, as directed by Hon’ble High
Court, the enquiry notice was sent to the Writ
Petitioner by the 5th respondent. Due to Corona
Pandemic restricts, enquiry could not be conducted
on 24.03.2020 and the enquiry was postponed.
Subsequently, the Grievance Redressal Committee
Forum conducted the enquiry on 30.09.2020, which
was presided over by its Chairman and Members of
the committee. The petitioner appeared before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
committee on that day. After careful consideration
of the request of the petitioner on all aspects and the
GRC arrived at a conclusion that the request of the
petitioner could not be accepted under technical
aspect. The minutes of the meeting and decision
taken by the Grievance Redressal Committee was
informed to the petitioner by way of proceedings and
the petitioner has received the same on 30.09.2020.”
5. It is further seen from the records that final award has also
been passed and the total compensation amount payable to the petitioner
has been arrived at Rs.7,81,328/-. According to the 6th respondent, the
compensation amount is ready to be disbursed to the petitioner and the
petitioner is refusing to receive the same.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2,4 and 6.
7. The Divisional Engineer (Highways), National Highways
Department, Road Sector Project II, Tirunelveli, submitted a lane plan
schedule for the acquisition of 2,26,504 sq. mtrs of lands for upgrading
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
the Tirunelveli – Shencottah – Kollam Road and developing SH-39.
Accordingly, notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu
Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published
in two dailies on 04.01.2015. Notification under Section 15(I) of the
Act was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on
01.03.2017.
8. The writ petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in
WP(MD) No.15541/2017 with almost similar prayer. This writ petition
came up for hearing on 09.11.2018 and this Court passed the following
order:
“After filing of this writ petition, certain
subsequent developments have appeared to have
taken place, which has rendered this writ petition
infructuous. However, liberty is given to the
petitioner to question any acquisition proceedings,
which may affect him.
2.With this liberty to the petitioner, this
writ petition stands closed. No costs. consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
9. It is clear from the above that even when the earlier writ
petition was closed by this Court, liberty was given to the petitioner to
question the acquisition proceedings. However, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, notification that was published under Section
15(2) of the Act was never made available to the petitioner and therefore,
there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the acquisition
proceedings. In view of the same, it was contended that the present writ
petition was filed seeking for a similar relief.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the alignment that is
fixed while acquiring the lands to establish highway involves
technicalities and this Court will not go into such technicalities while
deciding the writ petition. This Court gave an opportunity to the
petitioner to submit his objections to the grievance redressal committee
in order to see if the property belonging to the petitioner can be excluded.
However, the grievance redressal committee has come to the conclusion
that the alignment cannot be changed and if it is changed, there will be a
huge impact for a stretch of 200 meters to 300 meters and a lot of built up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
portions will have to be acquired and demolished. It is now too well
settled that this Court cannot sit on judgments over technical matters and
it is safe to leave it to persons who are experts in the field. Therefore,
this Court cannot interfere with the finding that has been rendered by the
grievance redressal committee. Therefore, it leaves the petitioner to seek
his redressal only by way of challenging the acquisition proceedings.
11. In the present case, after notification issued under Section
15(2) of the Act, proceedings have also been initiated and the award
payable to the petitioner has also been fixed. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that none of the proceedings pertaining to the
acquisition of land was served on the petitioner and that is the reason
why the petitioner was not able to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
12. The 6th respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the
relevant notification issued for acquisition of land under Section 15(2) of
the Act to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, if the petitioner is
so advised, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the same in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
accordance with law. The interim protection that was granted to the
petitioner is extended for a period of four weeks from today. In the
meantime, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the acquisition
proceedings upon being served with the relevant copies of the
proceedings by the 6th respondent.
13. This writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No
costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.10.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Secretary
Revenue department, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli
3.The Special District Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquisition)
Tamilnadu Road Development Project-II
Tiruchirappalli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1517 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
WP. (MD)No.1517 of 2020
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
