SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1214

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its Project Director
Versus
A. Muruganandham
Writ Appeal No.260 of 2008 & Writ Petition No.4320 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.260 of 2008
Decided on : 10-04-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R1, G. Ranganathan, RR2 & R3, D. Sreenivasan, Addl. G. P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of a dispute over the right and title of the petitioner in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act.

Headnote:

National Highways Act - Land Acquisition - Section 30(3) - [NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956, SECTION 3G(3), SECTION 3-A(1), SECTION 3-D(1), SECTION 3-(G)(3), SECTION 3-H(4)] - The court discussed the acquisition of lands under the National Highways Act, the publication of notifications, objections filed by landowners, and the dispute over the right and title of the petitioner. The court also referred to the Supreme Court decision on challenging land acquisition notifications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the publication of the award.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 30(3) of the National Highways Act, regarding the acquisition of his lands. The court heard the objections of the petitioner and others, and the dispute over the right and title of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a dispute relating to the right and title of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. As the matter had already been referred to the District Court, the court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Writ Appeal was allowed.

Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the acquisition of lands under the National Highways Act, the objections filed by the petitioner, and the dispute over the right and title of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding of a dispute relating to the right and title of the petitioner, and the referral of the matter to the District Court. The court also considered the Supreme Court decision on challenging land acquisition notifications after the publication of the award.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, the Writ Appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The Writ Petition was preferred by the petitioner-A.Muruganandham, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order dated 17. 2005 passed under Section 30 (3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, published in "Thina Thanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), with a further prayer to forbear the first respondent from taking any further action pursuant to the said order in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner situated at at U.Keeranur Village, Ulundurpet Taluk, comprising Survey No.450/3A 5, 0.05 acres, 450/3A 6, 0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 7-0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 8-0.02.5 acres, 450/3B 0.02.5 acres (Old Survey No.450/3 Total Extent 0.85 cent).

2. The lands in question were acquired under the National Highways Act (for short, "N.H. Act") by the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "the National Highways Authority").

3. In the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge having passed the interim order, has made it absolute and as the Writ Petition was preferred without impleading the National Highways Authority as party-respondent, the Writ Appeal has been preferred by the National Highways Authority after obtaining leave of the Court.

4. In the aforesaid background, both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal were heard together for disposal by this common judgment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner challenged the Notification dated 17. 2005 issued under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act on the ground that the writ petitioner was not given notice. He relied on the publication made in the newspaper "Thina Thanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), dated 20.7.2005 at Sl.No.42 to show that the name of the writ petitioner was not reflected therein, but the name of one Rajalakshmi was shown. It is submitted that no notice was given to the writ petitioner and without hearing, the impugned Notification was issued.

6. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the National Highways authorities, submitted that certain lands adjoining National Highways-45 in U.Keeranur Village, Ulundhurpettai Taluk, were the lands in question to be acquired by the National Highways Authority for four laning and improvements of NH-45 and for this purpose, the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram was appointed as competent authority under Section 3(a) of the N.H. Act, 1956 by the Central Government Gazette No.858 S.O.1162(3), dated 211. 2001. Subsequently, a Special District Revenue Officer was appointed solely for acquisition of the lands for National Highways, Villupuram. The Government of India re-designated the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Villupuram, as the competent authority under the N.H. Act. As per the land plan schedules furnished by the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India, Tiruchirapalli, the followings lands in U.Keeranur Village of Ulundhurpettai Taluk were acquired. Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the N.H. Act was published on 16. 2004, followed by paper publication in Tamil newspaper "Dinamalar" dated 7. 2004 and in English newspaper "The New Indian Express" dated 7. 2004. Apart from that, the Notification aforesaid was also published in the Village on 17. 2004 under Section 3-A(3). Within the statutory period of 21 days, six other land owners, viz. (1)Thiru.Periyannan, S/o Muniyan (2)Kuppusamy, S/o Mannankatti, (3)Palanival, S/o Muniyan, (4) Tmt.Vaijayanthimala, D/o Subramaniyan, (5)Tmt.Muthuammal, W/o Mottaiyan and (6) Radhakrishnan, S/o Venkatachala Padayachi, filed objections. After necessary enquiry, the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, disallowed the objections, vide proceedings Rc.A23/2003/NH-45/Ulundh/dated 1. 2005. The writ petitioner never preferred any objection to the said acquisition of the lands at the time of the Notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the N.H. Act.












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top