Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
C. Natarajan - Appellant
Versus
The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) (NH-47 and 67), Coimbatore & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 7372 of 2014 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on: 23-01-2015
The Court held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land for the construction of a truck lay-by was not necessary as there was an alternative site available on Government Poramboke land. The Court also held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner as it would result in the demolition of the petitioner's spinning mill and the loss of jobs for a large number of employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a spinning mill owner, challenged the acquisition of his land for the construction of a truck lay-by. The petitioner argued that the acquisition was not necessary as there was an alternative site available on Government Poramboke land. The petitioner also argued that the acquisition would cause irreparable loss to him as it would result in the demolition of his spinning mill and the loss of jobs for a large number of employees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land was not necessary as there was an alternative site available on Government Poramboke land. The Court also held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner as it would result in the demolition of the petitioner's spinning mill and the loss of jobs for a large number of employees.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land was necessary. 2. Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land was not necessary as there was an alternative site available on Government Poramboke land. The Court also held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner as it would result in the demolition of the petitioner's spinning mill and the loss of jobs for a large number of employees.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land.
1. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that the respondents herein have sought to acquire the property for widening of National Highway 47 and acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act Section 3A notice was issued on 04.05.2010 and objections were called for and filed on 21.05.2010 and 26.07.2010. Even before the receipt of the second objection on 26.07.2010, orders were passed rejecting the resistance against the acquisition on 15.07.2010. The writ petition was filed in W.P.No.17669 of 2010. On 27.09.2010, the writ petition was disposed of with certain observation. Thereafter, representations were made to the authorities explaining the difficulties that would be faced in the event of having truck terminal in the place wherein the petitioner is running an industry.
2. The National Highways Authority were sympathetic and reconsidered their decision to delete from the acquisition the area earmarked for rest area and truck byes. On 26.03.2011 they have addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Sulur seeking for availability of alternative “Poromboke lands” adjacent to Salem – Kochin section of NH-47. The Tahsildar also responded on 05.04.2011 placing on record that S.No.146 measuring 0.81.0 Hectares and S.No.274/16 measuring 8275 sq. mt. is available. The District Collector on 05.05.2011 had addressed a letter to the Chief Manager, National Highways, St. Thomas Mount, suggesting an alternate spot in the place of Sri Dhanalakshmi Sizing and Spinning Mills. In this letter also forwarded to the second respondent on 20.11.2011. The District Collector had found avoiding the acquisition of petitioner's property would save the exchequer of substantial amounts. The respondents in turn had sought for the opinion of intercontinental consultation and Techno Graft Private Limited, Coimbatore-14 as to whether the alternate proposal for the two numbers of truck lay bys and rest area are feasible. It was also opined that Government land available nearby would be sufficient. They have also requested the competent authority to consider the shifting of the truck lay bys as it is beneficial. He craves leave of this Court to refer the report dated 25.02.2012 issued by the Techno crafts agency confirming that the shifting of truck lay bys and rest area is advisable. Coincidentally, he made a request on 07.03.2012 based on the report of the expert seeking to relocate the truck lay bys from Km 134+870 RHS to Km 139+300 RHS. It appears several communications have taken place between the second respondent and Tahsildar as well on this subject. The Tahsildar also addressed a letter on 26.04.2013 giving particulars of the lands available for truck lay bys and informed the competent authorities that the State of Tamil Nadu will have no objection for the shifting.
3. On 03.05.2013, the second respondent had addressed a letter to the Chief Manager National Highways recommended to the competent authority for shifting of the truck lay bys. The proceedings dated 03.05.2013 reads as follows:-
“In view of the above submission, it is requested that the proposals for alternative locations for two truck lay byes at Km 129 + 200 to Km 139 + 300 and from Km 134 + 870 to Km 139 + 300 may be recommended for approval of competent authority, for using the available Government Lands keeping in view of the Project Completion Time”
Once again on 10.09.2013, a similar request was made by the second respondent to the first respondent. The Project Director was requested by the General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai on 14.11.2013 to secure the consent of the Collector for sparing the Government land for construction of truck lay bys. The District Collector was also approached by the Project Director on 14.11.2013 and a bare perusal of the letter clearly shows that their lands were not required for the purpose orig
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
