IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ.
P.V. Krishnamoorthy Petitioner - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of India, Rep., by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 16630, 16146, 16961, 19063, 19385, 20014, 20194, 20625 to 20627, 20647, 20764, 20969, 21242, 22334 & 22371 of 2018 & Crl.O.P.No.22714 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos.19202, 19829, 19830, 20201, 20202, 22786, 23432, 23433, 24238 to 24246, 24268, 24619, 24907, 24908, 26170, 26203, 27143, 38839 & 38842 to 38844 of 2018
Decided On : 08-04-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19, 47, 48A and 51A 14, , 21, 257(2) and 254(4) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 105 - Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 - Section 2(12) - National Environmental Policy Act - Acquire lands - Project and public interest litigants – Challenged - Petitioners before us can be categorised into two, namely, those whose lands are sought to be acquired for proposed project and public interest litigants who are opposing land acquisition proceedings - Authorised officer for project is District Revenue Officer of concerned District through which proposed project is to be implemented - Authorised officer/s issued notification under Section 3A(1) of Act stating that Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose lands owned by petitioners are required for development of a Green Field Highway Project and accordingly, declared its intention to acquire lands of petitioners/land owners - Petitioners would contend that bottleneck lies between in these three routes and if the said Section is widened, same shall reduce travelling time not only between but also to other important cities and towns in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring States – Held, petitioner as regards impact of subject highway on existing toll way - One of existing concessioners of tollway has impleaded themselves in the Writ Petition - They have projected a case that there will be severe dent on their collection, consequently, they will be put to prejudice - It is brought to our notice by learned counsel for petitioner that there is a condition in the concessionaire agreement between Concessioner and NHAI that on account of a new road, if collection of toll is affected, then concessionaire agreement is liable to be extended for a period up to 50 to 100% of its original period - NHAI has stated that road is an access control road to mean that road is accessible only at designated spots which appears to be in four to six places - Therefore, projection made by NHAI, as to benefits of project highway appears to be illusory learned counsel for land owners pointed out that revenue records were mutated and stood transferred as Government lands - This had happened even much prior to issuance of Notification under Section 3D of Act – Court had pointed out that such an action could not have been initiated, as by issuance of a Notification under Section 3A of Act, Government only conveyed its intention to acquire lands - In the result, Writ Petitions are allowed and land acquisition proceedings are quashed.
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the notification issued under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), proposing to acquire lands for the Salem-Chennai Eight Lane Highway Green Field Project. The project is part of the ‘Bharatmala Pariyojana’, a project conceived by the Central Government. The project is termed as “Green Field Project”, as it is a new road to be formed, while widening of existing highway is termedas ‘Brown Field Project’.
2. The petitioners before us can be categorised into two, namely, those whose lands are sought to be acquired for the proposed project and public interest litigants who are opposing the land acquisition proceedings. The authorised officer for the project is the District Revenue Officer of the concerned District through which the proposed project is to be implemented. The authorised officer/s issued notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act stating that the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose the lands owned by the petitioners are required for development of a Green Field Highway Project and accordingly, declared its intention to acquire the lands of the petitioners/land owners.
3. This notification has been challenged by the petitioners, whose lands are sought to be acquired as well as the public interest litigants. The objections raised by the persons, whose lands are sought to be acquired could be summarised as follows:-
It is submitted that the Government of India has proposed the subject project at an estimated cost of about Rs.10,000 crores to develop a 276kms highway connecting Chennai and Salem. There are three highways between Chennai and Salem i.e., NH48 and NE2 passing through Chennai, Kancheepuram, Vellore, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem with the length of 352.70kms with 4/6 Lane configuration. The second route being NH48 and SH18 (New NH179A) passing through the same districts with the length of 331.89kms with 2/4 Lane configuration and the third route NH32, NH132, NH38, NH79 and NE-2 passing through Chennai, Villupuram and Salem Districts with the length of 334.28kms with 2/4Lane configuration. The petitioners would contend that the bottleneck lies between Chennai to Vandalur and Chennai to Kancheepuram in these three routes and if the said Section is widened, the same shall reduce the travelling time not only between Chennai and Salem, but also Chennai to other important cities and towns in Tamil Nadu and the neighbouring States. The petitioners would contend that the proposed project is in noway going to ease the congestion as the travel from Chennai outer ring road to end of Salem bye-pass by all the existing roads would take the same travel time and the newly proposed project highway will reduce the distance only by 40kms without taking into account distance from Chennai to Vandalur bye-pass and Salem town to Salem bye-pass and if these stretches are included, the distance is more or less as that of the other roads. It is further contended that the proposed route of the project highway passes through Forest land, hilly areas, fertile agriculture lands and residential areas and therefore, the land owners and the public of the respective areas and the environmental activist have raised strong objections to the proposed project highway.
4. The petitioners would state that the Project Director of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) submitted terms of reference to the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) on 19.04.2018, the Expert Appraisal Committee for project of MoEF in its 189th meeting held on 07.03.2018, considered the terms of reference relating to the proposed project and recommended the Environmental Impact Assessment with project specific and the general terms of reference. While environmental clearance was pending, the Central Government authorised the competent authorities who are the District Revenue Officers of the
Alaknanda Hydropower Company Limited vs. Anuj Joshi And Ors.
Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr. vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors.
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd., vs. Famy Care & Ors.
Jal Mahal Resorts Private Ltd., vs. K.P.Sharma And Ors.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
K. T. Plantation Pvt., Ltd., & Anr., vs. State of Karnataka
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C.Kenchappa
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Limited & Ors.
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd., & Ors.
M.C. Metha vs. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons vs. Board of Trustees of The Port of Bombay
New Kattalai Canal and Aerie Pasana Vivasayigal Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Ors.
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Rajendra Shankar Shukla And Ors., vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers Government of India vs. M/s. Cipla Ltd., & Ors.
Sooraram Pratap Reddy and Ors., vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Ors.
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., vs. K. Mohammed Yourself & Ors.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. L. Krishanan & Ors.
State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Babu Ram Upadhya
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.