The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to comply with the pre-requisites outlined in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, before issuing notices under Section 15(2). The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering public interest in infrastructure development projects.

1. M/s. Cee Dee Yes Standard Towers (P) Limited, Adyar, Chennai, rep. by the Managing Director, questioning the validity of the Notice, dated 20.10.2003 issued by the first respondent/District Collector, Chennai, requiring the petitioner to show cause within thirty days from the date of giving public notice as to why the lands in S.No.329 of Velachery Village should not be acquired, has filed W.P. No.39216 of 2003, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the said notice in Form A issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, (in short 'the Act'), quash the same and grant further relief.

In W.P. No.4341 of 2004 filed by the very same petitioner, the prayer is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in reference No.MG/LA1/2002 from the file of the first respondent and to quash the order, dated 16.12.2003, whereby, the petitioner was informed that having been allowed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, to peruse the records, the petitioner's request for supply of further materials was not reasonable and hence, the same could not be complied with.

The other writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.26794 of 2004 is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice, dated 22.07.2004, in Form A in Ref No.MG/LA1/2002, issued by the District Collector, Chennai, under Section 15 (2) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 to show cause within 30 days from the date of giving public notice as to why the lands of the petitioner in S.No.329 should not be acquired.

2. All the three writ petitions filed by the very same petitioner, being interconnected, are heard together and decided by this Common Order.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the first instance, by touching upon the factual aspects involved, would submit that the petitioner, in respect of the land covered in S.No.329 of Velachery Village, Chennai District, was issued with the impugned notices under Section 15(2) of the Act, dated 20.10.2003 and 22.07.2004, calling upon him to show cause as to why the land in question should not be acquired for widening of the 6 lane / formation of inner ring road. After receiving the first notice, even though on 12.11.2003, preliminary objections were sent by the petitioner stating inter alia that the said Notice is vague, per se defective, bereft of material particulars, without jurisdiction etc. and called upon the first respondent to furnish him with the copies of the proposal issued by the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), no relevant details such as width and length of the land required for acquisition were furnished. After receipt of the preliminary objections, by communication dated 21.11.2003, the first respondent permitted the petitioner to peruse the required particulars from the office of the 2nd respondent, who permitted the petitioner to peruse the combined sketch and the land plan schedule prepared by the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Project I on 22.08.2003. During inspection, the petitioner's counsel perused a letter dated 14.05.2003 in Letter No.210/98/LA/JDO addressed by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) Project I, Chennai-16, to the 2nd respondent, directing the exclusion of the land situated opposite to that of the petitioner's land comprised in S. Nos.345, 346, etc., from acquisition. However, the 2nd respondent conveniently removed such letter from the File and denied perusal of such relevant particulars. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation on 27.11.2003 and thereafter, filed W.P. No.37419 of 2003 for a direction to furnish copies of the documents. This Court also permitted the petitioner's counsel to peruse the file with a further direction to furnish copies of the documents mentioned therein which also came to be furnished on 17.02.2004. It is further submitted that by G.O.