Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1606

High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN
Natarajan
Versus
Union of India rep. By its Secretary Department of Road Transport and Highways & Others
W.P.Nos. 16959, 16960, 17262, 17272, 19101 to 19108 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011, 2 to 2 of 2011, 3 to 3 of 2011, 1 to 1 of 2012, 2 to 2 of 2012
Decided on: 30-03-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari for Mr. G. Saravanan, N. Subramaniyan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 -Mrs. P. Bhuvaneswari, Senior Central Government Counsel, R2 -K.V. Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader, R3 - P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for M/s. Wilson Associates, Advocates.

The one-year period for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification is mandatory and bears no exceptions. However, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded in computing the period of two years.

Headnote:
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3-A(1), 3-A(2), 3-C(1), 3-C(2), 3-D(1), 3-D(2), 3-D(3) - LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 5-A, 6, 11, 11-A, 16, 17(2), 48(1) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 - ACQUISITION OF LAND - LIMITATION - ONE YEAR PERIOD FOR ISSUING SECTION 3-D DECLARATION FROM THE DATE OF SECTION 3-A NOTIFICATION - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - EXCLUSION OF PERIOD OF STAY - FRESH DECLARATION AFTER QUASHING OF EARLIER DECLARATION - PROSPECTIVE OPERATION - OBJECTIONS TO ACQUISITION - LIMITED RIGHT TO OBJECT UNDER SECTION 3-C(1) - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - TECHNICAL EXPERTISE OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - INTERFERENCE BY COURT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands under the National Highways Act, 1956, for widening of National Highways-67. Section 3-A notification was issued in 2007, followed by Section 3-C enquiry and Section 3-D declaration. The petitioners challenged the Section 3-D declaration in writ petitions, which were dismissed. They filed writ appeals, which were allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for fresh enquiry under Section 3-C(2). The petitioners submitted fresh objections, including the issue of limitation, technical feasibility, and alternative alignment. The impugned order was passed after considering the objections.
Finding of the Court:

1. The one-year period for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification is mandatory and bears no exceptions. However, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded in computing the period of two years. 2. Where a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed, a fresh declaration must be issued within the same limitation period prescribed under the first proviso and that period cannot be construed to commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Court quashing the declaration. 3. The objection under Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act is limited to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. 4. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to acquisition of land under the National Highways Act is limited. The court cannot ordinarily interfere with the technical expertise of the National Highways Authority of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the one-year period for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification is mandatory and bears no exceptions? 2. Whether the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded in computing the period of two years? 3. Whether where a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed, a fresh declaration must be issued within the same limitation period prescribed under the first proviso and that period cannot be construed to commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Court quashing the declaration? 4. Whether the objection under Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act is limited to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1)? 5. Whether the Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such? 6. Whether the scope of judicial review in matters relating to acquisition of land under the National Highways Act is limited? 7. Whether the court cannot ordinarily interfere with the technical expertise of the National Highways Authority of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The one-year period for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification is mandatory and bears no exceptions. However, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded in computing the period of two years. 2. Where a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed, a fresh declaration must be issued within the same limitation period prescribed under the first proviso and that period cannot be construed to commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Court quashing the declaration. 3. The objection under Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act is limited to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. 4. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to acquisition of land under the National Highways Act is limited. The court cannot ordinarily interfere with the technical expertise of the National Highways Authority of India.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.

Judgment

Common Order

1. All these batch of Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, hence, by consent, they are all taken up together for common disposal. The pleadings in all these cases are almost identical.

2. According to the petitioners, originally, Section 3-A notification was issued to them by the first respondent on 26.10.2007, for the purpose of acquiring lands only for widening National Highways-67 i.e., KM 284.600 to 332.600 (Karur -Coimbatore). The petitioners raised their objections. Subsequently, Section 3-C enquiry was held on 08.01.2008 by the second respondent. As the second respondent failed to furnish a copy of the order passed by him under Section 3-C(2) of the National Highways Act (for short, "The Act") and he proceeded further and recommended for Section 3-D declaration by the first respondent, who has ultimately passed the order, without application of mind. Therefore, earlier, the Petitioners filed separate Writ Petitions, challenging the Section 3-D declaration on various grounds. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court on 03.02.2010. Against the said order, Writ Appeals were filed, which were allowed by this Court on 09.11.2010. As per the judgment in Writ Appeals, the second respondent's order dated 08.01.2008 and the consequential orders were quashed. Ultimately, in the said judgment, this Court has also observed that, "Needless to say that after complying with requirements of law, the respondents shall proceed in the matter". After the judgment in Writ Appeals, the petitioners, in their letter dated 20.12.2010 contended that the very proceedings cannot be proceeded further on the grounds, such as, (i) There is one year limitation period prescribed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3-D of the Act, for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification. According to the petitioners, the period is already over. There cannot be any Section 3-C enquiry, without notifying a fresh Section 3-A notification; (ii) The Central Government has not sanctioned the project technically; (iii) The technical feasibility has not been properly considered and the alignment has been selected without studying the other possible alignment; (iv) The alignment so proposed is because of the wrong doing of the private consultant and it would increase the cost. The petitioners also submitted three alignment proposals. According to the petitioners, inspite of filing of separate petitions on 09.05.2011, raising the preliminary issue, the conduct of the Section 3-C enquiry is not correct and according to them, no enquiry was conducted on 09.05.2011, but the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings on 22.06.2011, which were served on them only on 08.07.2011, so as to prevent the petitioners from challenging the order passed under Section 3-D declaration. Therefore, the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is passed without giving any reasonable opportunity and following the principles of natural justice and alternative way suggested by the petitioners were put away to the so called Technical Experts for opinion.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly challenged the impugned order on three grounds, viz., (i) The order has not been passed within a year from the date of 3-A notification; (ii) Though, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, Padma Sundara Rao and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, arises under the Land Acquisition Act, the same principle will squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners; and (iii) Since the project has not been technically sanctioned by the first respondent, it is not correct and the alignment, which has been made is not in tune with the Rules and Regulations, whereas the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioners have not been considered and excess lands have been sought to be unnecessarily acquired. According to the petitioners, since, the imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis