Landowners not entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

WP No.1482/2007:

Common Order:

Under the National Highways Development Project Phase-I, known as "Golden Quadrilateral", the Government of India proposed three Grade Separators, along National Highways 4, 45 and 205 in the City of Chennai, in three major arterial junctions, viz., Kathipara (Guindy), Koyambedu and Padi, apart from a flyover in front of Chennai Air Port.

2. By a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road Transport and Highways) bearing No.S.O.1130(E) dated 18. 2005, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) dated 18. 2005, issued under Section 3-A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the proposal to acquire several lands in Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District was notified as being required for the public purpose of construction of free flow facilities along National Highway No.4. The substance of the said notification was published in one English Daily and one Vernacular Daily on 20.8.2005 and after considering the objections raised by some of the land owners, with reference to the remarks of the National Highways Authority of India, a declaration under Section 3-D (1) of the Act was issued by way of a notification in S.O.1622(E) dated 111. 2005. The said declaration was also published in the Newspapers on 112. 2005 and an award was passed on 8-12-2006.

3. The lands in New Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2, 14/3 and 15/2, measuring 1582 sq.mtrs., 286 sq.mtrs., 165 sq.mtrs., and 1083.5 sq.mtrs., respectively, of Koyambedu Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, owned by six members of a family, formed part of the said acquisition. These six members of the family have joined together and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1869 of 2007, challenging the declaration issued under Section 3-D (1) as well as the Award passed on 12. 2006.

4. Two out of the six land owners, are the Managing Director and Director of a Private Limited Company by name Shri Andal Alagar Kalyana Mandapam Pvt. Ltd., which owns a Kalyana Mandapam constructed on the aforesaid lands. Therefore, as the owner of the superstructure, the said Private Limited Company has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1482 of 2007, challenging the declaration dated 111. 2005 issued under Section 3-D(1) as well as the Award passed on 12. 2006.

5. I have heard Dr.Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Asst. Solicitor General for Official respondents in both the writ petitions.

6. Before getting into the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out the list of dates and events, on which there is no controversy. They are as follows:-

7. In the background of the events short listed above, Dr.Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the whole sequence of events, could be dissected into two parts, viz., (i) the events commencing from the notification under Section 3-A(1) (dated 18. 2005) and culminating in a declaration under Section 3-D(1) (dated 20.12.2005); and (ii) the events starting from the request of the petitioner for details, by her letter dated 1. 2006 and her proposal dated 3-3-2006 for an alternative Plan, culminating in the rejection of the alternative proposal on 11. 2006 and the Award passed on 12. 2006.

8. In so far as the first part of the sequence of events is concerned, Dr.Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel contended that the notification under Section 3-A(1) as well as the declaration under Section 3-D(1) are vitiated for two reasons, viz.,:- of submitting obj(a) that the names of the owners of these lands were wrongly mentioned in respect of Survey Nos.14/1 and 15/2, though they were correctly mentioned in respect of Survey Nos.14/2 and 14/3; and

(b) that the precise details of the lands sought to be acqu