Writ petition held maintainable.

(The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent published in Gazzette of India (Extraordinary) U/s. 3 A in No:156 dated 21.02.2006 and the consequent notification published in the Gazzette of India (Extraordinary) U/s 3 D (1) in No.1249 dated 110. 2006 and quash the same as illegal.)

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 2600 sq.ft., comprised in Survey No. 769/1A1C part, 769/1A4B in New No.84, Old No.61, 2nd Main Road, Sri Balaji Nagar, Chennai – 600 053. The land acquisition proceedings were originally initiated in the year 1988 for formation of bye-pass road connecting NH4 and NH5, in which the petitioners land was not included but the same was given up and fresh notification was published in newspaper on 21.02.2006 for acquisition of the petitioners lands also, the petitioner has sent his objection dated 23.03.2006 to the third respondent. On 01.06.2006, the third respondent issued a letter calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 15.06.2006, but on that day, no enquiry was conducted, however, the petitioner has submitted his objection on the same day. Again, the petitioner was called upon for an enquiry on 23.08.2006 and on that day also no enquiry was conducted, hence, the petitioner has filed WP No. 35457 of 2006 for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry and to give up the proposal of acquiring his land and proceed further as per the original proposal of the year 1988. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 02.03.2007 on the ground that enquiry was conducted, the petitioners objections were also considered and rejected by the respondents and thereafter the notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, (hereinafter referred to as Act) was published on 110. 2006, with the result, the land vested with the Central Government. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act.

3. Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally land acquisition proceedings were initiated, lands were acquired for the purpose of laying of road connecting NH4 and NH5,, compensation was also paid, hence, the fresh notification issued under Section 3A on 21.02.2006 and under Section 3D on 110. 2006 are violative of the Act and Rules. Even in the present notification issued under Section 3A of the Act dated 21.02.2006, the survey number of the property of the petitioner is not found mentioned; that no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act; that the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued by the Deputy Secretary, who is not competent and prayed for allowing of the writ petition. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions:-

i) (Messers Ghaio Mal & Sons vs. State of Delhi and others) AIR 1959 Supreme Court 65 wherein in Para Nos. 9 and 11, it was held thus:-

"9. ....Indeed in paragraph 7 of the respondents statement filed in the High Court on February 2, 1955 this letter has been stated to have "conveyed the sanction of the Chief Commissioner of the grant of license to the 5th respondent". A document which conveys the sanction can hardly be equated with the sanction itself. Finally the document does not purport to have been authenticated in the form in which authentication is usually made. There is no statement at the end of the letter that it has been written "by order of the Chief Commissioner". For all these reasons it is impossible to read this document as the order of the Chief Commissioner."

11. In the view we have taken it is not necessary for us to consider whether the action taken under the Excise Act and the rules thereunder was a judicial or an executive action, for even if it were of the latter category the letter of December 14, 1954,