Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Seshasayee, J.
Titanium Equipment & Anode Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tami Nadu and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 27438 of 2014, 1904 to 1908 of 2016, MP. Nos. 1, 2 of 2014 in WP. No. 27438 of 2014 and WMP. Nos. 1677 to 1681 of 2016
Decided On : 22-06-2018
For the Appellant :T.P. Manoharan, Senior Advocate Asst. by T.M. Naveen
For the Respondent: M. Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Sections 15, 16 and 19 - Tamil Nadu Amendment to Central Act, 2013 - Section 105A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Right to Fair Compensation Act - Sections 114, 11, 3 and 40 – Acquired Land - Petitioners have filed their objections - Broadly objections of petitioners were that their properties are not required for present purpose that adjacent properties on other side of road is available within Zoo that properties now sought to be acquired lie far away from proposed road alignment - However Government has proceeded to issue notification without following procedure prescribed under rules - Alleging that enquiry required to be held pursuant to notice issued is mandatory and indispensable same was defeated when government mechanically issued a notification - On aforesaid allegation petitioners have come forward with for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash notice issued issued and a notification highways & minor ports department issued well as subsequent notices issued - During pendency of said writ petition land acquisition authority had measured properties of petitioners and divided them into blocks and sub-divided survey fields and issued separate notices inviting objections of petitioners to amount proposed to be awarded as compensation - Held, Since life of law is not logic but experience and every legal proposition must in ultimate analysis be tested on touchstone of pragmatic realism audi alteram partem rule would by experimental test be excluded if importing right to be heard has effect of paralyzing administrative process or need for promptitude or urgency of situation so demands - But at same time it must be remembered that this is a rule of vital importance in field of administrative law and it must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands - If arguments of petitioners counsel is scanned for its merit it must be said that they never came forward with a case that they have not been heard under rules - And it is also their case that they have volunteered to present 100 plus documents in support of their objections - As stated already no authority is required to hold an enquiry in nature of a judicial proceeding to decide on merit of objections of land owners or quality of materials provided by them - From Governments stand point notwithstanding merit of objections of land owners there may still be a larger public interest that might outweigh merit of land owners objection - Petitions are closed.
N. Seshasayee, J.
1. The facts on which the petitioners have rested their cause for their current action may be stated:
The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The first petitioner company owned a block of land measuring 3.75 acres in Survey Nos. 261-B/2A1 pt. and 261-B/2A2B2A pt of Vandalur Village, Kancheepuram District. The second petitioner, who is the widow of the Founder-Chairman of the first petitioner owns another block of land measuring 1.34 acres in Survey Nos. 261-B/2A2A1 pt. and 261-B/2A2B1A pt. Both these properties lie adjacent to each other. The second petitioner has leased her 1.34 acres of land to the first petitioner company. In other words, the first petitioner is in possession of 5.09 acres of industrial lands. The first petitioner has established an industrial unit in the said property.
Since 1993-1994, petitioners ran into difficult times, when their properties were repeatedly targeted for acquisition. In 1993-1994, the Government had acquired 24,000 sq. ft. for the Highways Department, part of which it was not able to utilise for about 20 years. In May 1998, Government had acquired another 11,985 sq. ft., this time for the Railways. The aforesaid two acquisitions had reduced the total holding of the petitioners to 4.18 acres. Be that as it may, on 04.11.2013, the petitioners were issued with personal notices under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, this time for providing additional facilities to the Multilane Interchange Flyover to be constructed by it, at the junction of the Outer Ring Road and GST Road, and required the petitioners to come forward with their objections if any, to the said proposal.
The petitioners have filed their objections to Section 15(2) notice on 30.11.2013. Broadly the objections of the petitioners were that their properties are not required for the present purpose, that adjacent properties on the other side of the road is available within Vandalur Zoo, that the properties now sought to be acquired lie far away from the proposed road alignment. However, the Government has proceeded to issue notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 5(2) and 5(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003. Alleging that the enquiry required to be held pursuant to the notice issued under Section 15(2) is mandatory and indispensable, the same was defeated when the Government mechanically issued a notification under Section 15(1).
1.2 On the aforesaid allegation, the petitioners have come forward with W.P. No. 27438 of 2014 for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the notice issued dated 04.11.2013 issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and a notification in G.O.Ms. No. 102, Highways & Minor Ports (HF2) Department dated 01.09.2014 issued under Section 15(1) well as the subsequent notices issued under Section 16(2) dated 18-09-2014.
2.1 During the pendency of the said writ petition, the land acquisition authority had measured the properties of the petitioners and divided them into 5 blocks and sub-divided the survey fields and issued separate notices dated 07.11.2014 under Section 19(5) of T.N. Act 2001, inviting the objections of the petitioners to the amount proposed to be awarded as compensation. Of them, 3 notices were issued to the first petitioner in WP. No. 27438 of 2014 and the remaining two notices were issued to the second petitioner in W.P. No. 27438 of 2014. This was followed by separate interim awards dated 18.12.2015.
2.2 Challenging the interim awards, but without prejudice to the contentions taken in WP. 27438/2014, the first petitioner viz., Titanium has filed W.P. Nos. 1904 to 1906 of 2016 and the second petitioner has filed W.P. Nos. 1907 & 1908 of 2016. In the affidavits filed in support of these 5 writ petitions, it is inter alia averred that the statute does not provide for passing a preliminary award and a final award, that in view
