JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Leave granted.

1. Dr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4948 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 12587 of 2021] and Civil Appeal No. 4949 of 2021 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 12947 of 2021].

2. The appellants in these cases filed writ petitions wherein they mounted challenge to the show cause notices issued by the respondents. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, did not interfere with the impugned notices noting that the appellants have not attributed any mala-fides and their writ petitions were accordingly, dismissed. However, in paragraph 15 it held as follows:

“15. However, it is open to the petitioners to offer their explanation to the impugned show cause notices to the respondents, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if any explanation is offered by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of their explanation and thereafter, shall proceed further. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.”

The dispute lies essentially in a narrow compass. The allegation raised in the show cause notices is to the effect that the appellants have encroached upon the property comprising in the ‘National Highway’ in question. The case set up by the appellants before the High Court was that the notices have been issued, purporting to be under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as State Act, 2001, for brevity). It was contended that the said enactment had become void in view of the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was expatiated and is contended that the authority under the State Act, 2001, did not have the jurisdiction in the matter of dealing with the alleged encroachments over the National Highway.

The High Court notices that though the road actually belongs to the National Highways Department, the construction and maintenance of the road was under the supervision and control of the officer of the National Highways Wing, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. Noticing that since the subject matter of the road is under the maintenance and supervision of the National Highways Wing, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, the Court did not find any error in the impugned notices. It is further noted that there were 326 encroachers in the said Highway and such encroachments were identified after survey and notices were issued. It was further observed that the impugned notices are only show cause notices, which are normally not interfered with, except for lack of jurisdiction of the authority or if mala-fides is attributed. Accordingly the writ petitions were dismissed as noticed.

3. We have heard Shri B. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

4. In the appeals, the appellants persisted with the complaint that the notices have been issued under the State Act, 2001. It is the case of the appellants that the officer who issued the notices, could not possibly have seized at, power to purport to remove the alleged encroachment in the National Highway.

5. The contention on the other hand of the State as articulated by Shri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, is that notification has been issued under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’ for brevity) and the roads in question where the encroachments have taken place are covered by the notification. It is the contention of the respondents that the officer, therefore, who has issued notices purportedly under the State Act, did have jurisdiction, as correctly found by the High Court.

6. If we notice the stat