Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2318

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.P. SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Ramdass Bharadwaj & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Highways Department Fort St. George & Others - Respondents
W.A.Nos.1070 and 1071 of 2006
Decided On : 07 September 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:K.M. Vijayan, SC, for M/a L.A. Law. For the Respondent:P.S. Raman, Additional Advocate General, M. Dhandapani, AGP.

The Highways Act, particularly Section 15(1), provides the authority to acquire land for public purposes, with an overriding effect over other laws, and emphasizes the public interest in infrastructure development projects.

Headnote:
Highways Act - Acquisition of Property - Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, particularly Section 15(1), and its application in the acquisition of property for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Way. The court also considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, including Section 47, and their relevance to the development and acquisition of land. The court highlighted the authority of the Highways Act in fixing highway boundaries and control lines, as well as the overriding effect of the Act over other laws.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land for the formation of I.T. Corridor Express Way under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. They argued that the acquisition was inconsistent with their lawful rights under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the planning permission issued by the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the acquisition under Section 15(1) of the Highways Act was valid and that the authorities had the power to fix highway boundaries and control lines. The court also emphasized the public interest in allowing the infrastructure development project to proceed, dismissing the writ appeals.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the acquisition under Section 15(1) of the Highways Act, the relevance of the Town and Country Planning Act to the acquisition, and the equitable treatment of the appellants in light of the infrastructure development project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Highways Act and its provisions regarding the acquisition of land for public purposes, as well as the overriding effect of the Act over other laws. The court also considered the public interest in allowing the infrastructure development project to proceed.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Judgment :-

K. Chandru, J.

The appellant in W.A.No.1070 of 2006 had filed W.P.No.18050 of 2005 challenging the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.92 Highways (HW1) 25.4.2005 published in Gazette No.II(2)/HW/(340e-2)/2005 under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in so far as it relates to acquisition of the property of the petitioner situate at Government Manavari Survey No.277-5 (Part) now sub-divided as 277-5B, No.44 Kottiwakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, beyond 23 feet from the existing western boundary of the petitioner's land as per the sanctioned plan and master plan of the second respondent. The other five land owners, viz., the appellants in W.A.No.1071 of 2006 have filed writ petition in W.P.No.18051 of 2005 for similar relief. This, according to the appellants / petitioners, is that the acquisition made in respect of the land in question, and was inconsistent with the petitioners' lawful right, which had become final under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (for short, 'TNTCP Act') as per the planning permission issued by the second respondent.

2. It is seen from the records that the District Collector, by the powers vested on him by the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.206 Highways (HN2) Department dated 29.9.2003 issued a notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act stating that the land found in Survey No.277/5 to the extent of 00383 Square Metres is required for the purpose of development of the Old Mahabalipuram Road (for short, 'OMR Road') into six way Traffic lane, which is rechristened as I.T. Corridor. Against the said notice, the appellants / petitioners in both the writ petitions filed an objection dated 20.12.2004. Their serious objections found in paragraphs 14 to 18 are extracted below:

"14. As per the notification published on 10.12.2004, the acquisition in our land in S.No.277/5 is to the extent of 383 Sq.m. which implies that a strip of 13.78 M average width is proposed to be acquired from our land, meaning a width of 22.13 M from the centerline for the NOW proposed 41 M wide Highway (the width has arbitrarily been increased progressively from 30.5 M to 35.5 M to 38 M to 41M). This means on the opposite side of existing centerline the acquisition will be only to the distance of 18.87 M. This shows more land is proposed to be acquired on the eastern side than on the western side damaging a legally constructed recently approved building in preference to the opposite side which smacks of malafide intentions.

15. The constant varying of highway boundary and road width was also not followed by a required notification under Section 8 of the Act, taking into consideration the volume of the traffic in the road and other relevant factors required to change the width of the road three times within a period of six months.

16. We also bring to notice, when the Highways Act provides for even permission of encroachment under Section 26, we do not know how it is justifiable on the part of the Highways authority to unilaterally change the Highway boundary and acquire more land than the one provided for the Highways acquisition as per the sanctioned plan dated 27.5.2003.

17. We, therefore, state in the light of giving respect to another statutory authority namely CMDA and the law regulating development it is just and fair that the acquisition can be made only to the extent of 23 feet from our land as per the sanctioned plan in confirmity of which our development was made.

18. Any additional acquisition other than the one provided for on the date of the sanctioned plan (27.5.2003) will be a clear case of violation of rule of law and principles of harmonious construction of statutes."

They have also requested the Government to drop the plan to acquire the land.

3. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 vide G.O.Ms.No.91, Highways (HW1) dated 25.4.2005, which was pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document