2010 Supreme(Mad) 4856

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
R. Natarajan & Others
Versus
The Union of India & Others
W.A. NOS. 339 TO 349 OF 2010 W.P. NO. 17991 OF 2010 & M.P. NOS. 1 OF 2010
Decided On :Decided On : 09-11-2010

Ratios
a. In land acquisition proceedings, the objections raised by the land owners are to be considered on the merit of such objections and not on any other grounds.
b. The order of rejection of the objection raised by the land owners in the land acquisition proceedings not on the inherent merit of such objection but on any other ground would be invalid and the consequential order of vesting would be invalid.
c. Notification under Sec.3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 could be challenged by the land owners even after the land was vested with the Central Government by virtue of Sec.3D of the Act.

Headnote:(A)National Highways Act, 1956(48 of 1956)-Sec.3-C, 3-D-Land acquisition- Highways-Expansion-Objections-Consideration-Natural justice-Reason-Vesting-Challenge-Petitioners’ lands were sought to be acquired by the respondents for expansion of the national highway-When the proposal was notified by the respondent, petitioners submitted detailed objections to the respondent-Respondent rejected the objection by saying that technical experts stated that the land was necessary and the owners would be paid compensation-Later, Central Government notified the acquisition and the vesting of the acquired land-Petitioners challenged the vesting order without challenging the order passed on their objections-While the petitioners contended that their objections were not considered but was simply rejected by stating that compensation would be provided to them and the experts supported the acquisition and thus the Sec.3-C notification and the consequential order under Sec.3D was not valid-Respondents contended that once the land was vested with the Government, the owners could not challenge the acquisition-When the writ petitions were dismissed, the same were challenged in appeal-Parties stood by their stands-Held, the objections made by the petitioners were not considered on merit. Instead, the same were rejected on the ground of opinion by expert and the payment of compensation and the rejection order was also not communicated to the petitioners-Order passed under Sec.3C and the consequential orders were set aside and the authorities were given liberty to consider the objections on merit and take a fresh decision.

        (B)National Highways Act, 1956(48 of 1956)-Sec.3-C, 3-D-Land acquisition- Highways-Objections-Consideration-Natural justice-Reason-Vesting-Challenge-In land acquisition proceedings, the objections raised by the land owners are to be considered on the merit of such objections and not on any other grounds-The order of rejection of the objection raised by the land owners in the land acquisition proceedings not on the inherent merit of such objection but on any other ground would be invalid and the consequential order of vesting would be invalid.

        We are really shocked and surprised to see the order and the manner of exercising power under Section 3(2) of the Act. The order clearly shows that the authority passed the order purely on the basis that the technical experts have already given their opinion. Nothing is reflected from the order that the objection raised by the appellants were even considered or dealt with by the authority. Moreover no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the objection. In our opinion, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authority while passing the order rejecting the objection under Section 3(2) of the Act. Para 18

        (C)National Highways Act, 1956(48 of 1956)-Sec.3-C, 3-D-Land acquisition-Highways- Objections-Consideration-Natural justice-Reason-Vesting-Challenge-Notification under Sec.3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 could be challenged by the land owners even after the land was vested with the Central Government by virtue of Sec.3D of the Act.

        The contention of Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General that since the appellants are challenging only the notification issued under Section 3-D of the Act and not the order passed under Section 3-C (2) of the Act, the validity of the order need not be gone into in the writ petition. We do not find any force in the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. The appellants challenged the notification of the Central Government under Section 3-D of the Act mainly on the ground that the objection under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was not considered, or if considered, the order disallowing the objection was not served upon the petitioners. Para 21