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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 2958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
M/s. Ceedeeyes Standard Towers Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector of Chennai, Rajaji Salai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 26794 of 2004 & W.M.P. No. 24031 of 2016
Decided On : 14-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Mr. P. Rathinadurai
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Ayyadurai, Mr. S. Diwakar

The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory procedure to be followed under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001 before proceeding with land acquisition under Section 15, emphasizing the importance of minimum land acquisition to minimize inconvenience to the landowner.

Headnote:

Writ of Certiorari - Acquisition of Land - Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001, Section 15[2] - Section 8, 15 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001, particularly Sections 8 and 15, and their interpretation in relation to the acquisition of land for road widening. The court emphasized the mandatory procedure to be followed under Section 8 before proceeding under Section 15 and highlighted the importance of minimum land acquisition to minimize inconvenience to the landowner. The court also considered the impact of previous judgments on similar issues and the binding nature of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash a notice issued under Section 15[2] of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001 for the acquisition of their land for road widening. The petitioner contended that the acquisition proceedings were illegal and vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 8 of the Act. The petitioner also raised objections on technical grounds and alleged malafide intentions on the part of the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the legal provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 8 and 15, and the interpretation of these provisions in previous judgments. The court found that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 8 of the Act. The court also dismissed the plea of malafide against the authorities, emphasizing the impact of indiscriminate development on the environment and innocent buyers.

Issues: [1] Whether the contentions raised in this Writ Petition are covered by the decision in the case of R. Moorthy ? [2] Whether the decisions in R. Moorthy and Jayaraman hold the field and does it cover the contentions raised by the petitioner ? [3] Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent are vitiated by malafides ?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mandatory procedure under Section 8 of the Act is a pre-requisite before proceeding under Section 15, emphasizing the importance of minimum land acquisition to minimize inconvenience to the landowner. The court also emphasized the impact of indiscriminate development on the environment and innocent buyers.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the plea of malafide against the authorities was rejected. The court found the acquisition proceedings to be vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 8 of the Act.

ORDER :

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash a notice issued by the 1st respondent in Form-A dated 22.07.2004 under Section 15[2] of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001.

2. This Writ Petition was initially tagged along with W.P. No. 39261 of 2003 and was disposed of by an order dated 21.02.2013, holding that the impugned notice is vitiated for the reason that the respondents have not followed the pre-requisites as mentioned in Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] and that, no Award has been passed to pay compensation to the petitioner. Keeping in mind the importance of the acquisition for road widening, direction was issued to the respondents to grant in lieu of compensation, TDR benefit, failing which, the impugned notice would be quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh in terms of the Act by following Section 8 and 15 of the Act. As against the said order, the respondents preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.162 of 2014, which appeal was clubbed along with other connected matters and by a Common Judgment dated 28.01.2015, taking note of a notification issued by the respondent as published in the Government Gazette dated 22.10.2003, the order dated 21.02.2013 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the writ Court for being heard and decide afresh. This is how the Writ Petition is before this Court.

3. The facts which would be essential to consider the case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The petitioner purchased an extent of about 48,000 sq.ft. in survey No.329 of Velacherry Village during 2003 and they have put up a multi-storeyed building therein, with a total built up area of about 1,30,000 sq.ft. of stilt plus eight floors in terms of the plan sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The 1st respondent served a notice dated 20.10.2003, being a show cause notice under Section 15[2] of the Act. The notice stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu requires the land mentioned in the schedule therein for the purpose of formation of the inner ring road and the petitioner was granted liberty to show cause within 30 days as to why the land should not be acquired. The notice mentioned the name of the registered holders as M/s. Chelladurai and four others, partners of M/s. Standard Fire Works and the petitioner's name was mentioned as interested person. The petitioner submitted their objection on 14.11.2003 among other things, contending that the notice is without jurisdiction and vague and requested for copies of the proposal sent by the Highways Department, Public Works Department, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, etc. In the notice, the extent of land which was proposed to be acquired was 22= cents in survey No.329 of Velachery Village. The petitioner contended that no details were furnished, such as, width and length of the land proposed for acquisition. There upon the petitioner was permitted to peruse the required particulars in the office of the 2nd respondent, which opportunity was availed by the petitioner. Nevertheless, they stated that all records were not allowed to be perused and what was shown to them was only the combined sketch and land plan schedule prepared by the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.37419 of 2003 for issuing a direction to furnish copies of the documents sought for by them. Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.02.2004 directing furnishing of copies of documents, which direction was complied with by the respondents.

4. The petitioner further contended that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, the Highway Authority has to fix the highway boundary line, building line or control line and thereafter, publish a draft notification containing the details of the land situated between the highway boundary line and control line proposed to be fixed, call for objections from all persons likely to be affec






































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top