2018 Supreme(Mad) 4503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
N. Tamil Selvi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 7681 of 2013 and M.P. Nos. 2, 3 of 2013
Decided On : 21-12-2018

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5, 5-A & 6 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 2(2),3-A(1), 3-D, 3-A(3) and 3-A - Agricultural property where Petitioner cultivates paddy - Quashing a Land Acquisition - Agricultural property where Petitioner cultivates paddy - Petitioner purchased it in year - While so a Notification in was published under Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II Section-3, sub-section (ii) under Section 3-A(1) of National Highways Act and it was followed by Publication of substance of Notification under Section 3-A(3) of Act in an English and a vernacular Newspapers both - This Notification pertains to conversion of NH in stretch from - This Notification indicated intent of Central Government to acquire inter alia Petitioners lands referred to above - Government has not notified its declaration under Section 3-D of National Highways Act yet - Notification issued under Section 3-A pertains to NH- but it runs about km away from Petitioners land - This would imply that proposed Acquisition is not intended for acquiring road margins of existing NH but intended for Acquiring lands for formation of a new road along a new stretch - Broadly procedure adopted by Competent Authority constituted under National Highways Act for Acquiring land for forming a new road is contrary to statutory scheme - Said Notification is principally ridden with multiple flaws as enumerated below proposed National Highway along proposed new stretch would require construction of a new Bridge across Vennar River - This is an unnecessary wastage of public funds more so because there already exists another bridge over same Vennar River in Thanjavur Town Outer Link Bye-pass road - Secondly proposed new stretch would have to cut across a lake known by name Samuthram Eri and is bound to affect eco-balance of area - Ideally existing NH running from Kumbakonam-Thanjavur could be widened rather than laying a parallel road cutting across fertile Agricultural lands destroying in process both farming and livelihood of Farm/Agricultural labourers - Proposed Acquisition is soaked in arbitrary exercise of Statutory power and hence is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Every project involving building of a new road requires Environmental Clearance for which a public hearing is required to be - This has not happened - There therefore, is a violation of Environmental Protection Act - Whether Acquisition is required for formation of two-lane road or a four lane road and that Gazette Notification and Paper Publication publishing substance of Notification bear different dates and consequently dates for filing objections to proposal to acquire lands within meaning of Section 3-C of Act has become uncertain - Whether road proposed will be a two lane road or a four lane is concerned what is now in challenge is a Notification issued under Section 3-A - Whether Respondents should be pinned to earlier Notification in since that was Notification in force when Notification under Section 3-A of National Highways Act was issued - Held, Power to acquire land etc - Where Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for building maintenance management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof it may by Notification in Official Gazette declare its intention to acquire such land - Section 3-A(1) merely lists nature of Public purposes for which land may be acquired - Public purpose may be for building a National Highway maintaining a National Highway or managing and operating a National Highway - Building a National Highway obviously will include formation of any New National Highway - Fallacy of argument that gets exposed here is that if a highway has already come up and if it has also been declared a National Highway under Section 2(2) of National Highways Act what is need for Parliament to grant power of acquisition for building a National Highway? Secondly where statute has not chosen to limit meaning of word/expression building a National Highway it is not permissible for Court to limit its natural meaning either unless there arises an absurdity in interpretation and ambiguity in understanding - Last aspect to be considered is on need to obtain Environmental Clearance - After Notification in there is no need to obtain Environmental Clearance since expansion of existing NH is proposed only for about km as same is required only if expansion is proposed for more than km - Point however is whether Respondents should be pinned to earlier Notification in since that was Notification in force when Notification under Section 3-A of National Highways Act was issued - Answer is an emphatic - These are policy decisions of Government evolved on multiple parameters guided by multi-various inputs - Broadly a policy maker has power to change policy based on experience gained from working of a policy of time - Given context once policy on Environmental Clearance is changed a Landowner has no right to insist that an earlier policy should be followed - Petition Dismissed