Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
N.R. Marappan and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Collectorate Office, Erode and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. No. 19853 of 2011
Decided On : 30-08-2019
For the Appellant :V. Raghavachari, K. Surendranath, S. Dhanasekaran, P.T. Ramadevi, R. Shivakumar for K.M. Vijayan Associates and R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel asst. by R.G. Narendhiran, Advocates
For the Respondent:Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by C. Thirumaran, Special Government Pleader and N. Manokaran, Advocate
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section,15 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 8- Right to Fair Compensation Act – Section,105-A - Payment of interest and Power of entry – Enquiry - Petitions have one object in common - To resist acquisition of their lands provisions of Tamil Nadu Highways Act (hereinafter in short Act acquisition relates to project involving the formation of an Outer Ring Road for a distance through Village in Erode Village Erode - It starts from District and connects various highways Road at Tindal and pass through and joins the National Highways to reach pleadings are however not identical so are the prayer - It varies from a challenge to notices for surrender of properties Section Act merely to challenge to the declaration made Section Act - There also allegations of non-service of personal notices Section Act and non-conduct of enquiry Rule read along with Section of Act - There was also an allegation in few petitions that a road was proposed to be formed along dead alignment accommodate lands of then Minister of State Government alignment was changed –Held, Court has rejected already - In this backdrop atleast one petitioner he was not served notice Section of Act - Since project is midway through its implementation and has consumed considerable public money even if this argument is entertained will have the effect of repeating acquisition-procedure for this petitioner - In real terms this will be a profitless exercise though it will be in strict conformity with law - But ultimately acquisition has to happen for substantial public money has been invested in the project and the project itself has been substantially completed - In eventuality only question would be one of just compensation to which this petitioner is entitled to - Instead of postponing it same compensation can still be paid - Right to Fair Compensation Act in Caritus India represented by Diocesan Director v. Union of India The said decision however has saved those acquisitions where lands are put to use - Here is a case where substantial stretch property acquired have already been utilized - And in this Order this court has only upheld the legality of acquisition proceedings that have been initiated Tamil Nadu Highways Act - Therefore essentially acquisition has to be saved since the project for which acquisition was made is substantially completed - But compensation still remains to be paid - This has be now done necessarily in terms of Right to Fair Compensation Act - Therefore this Court directs that awards be passed in terms of Right to fair Compensation Act within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of this order – Petition dismissed
ORDER :
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
1. All these writ petitions have one object in common: To resist the acquisition of their lands under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter in short "Act"). The acquisition relates to a project involving the formation of an Outer Ring Road for a distance of 14.8 km. through Pudur Pudupalayam Village, in Erode "C" Village, Erode. It starts from Kokkarayanpettai, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, and connects various highways at Erode-Karur Road, Erode-Kangayam Road, Erode-Chennimalai Road, Erode-Perundurai Road at Tindal, and pass through Chithoode, Bhavani, and joins the National Highways to reach Tiruchengode.
2.1. The pleadings are however not identical, so are the prayer. It varies from a challenge to notices for surrender of properties under Section 16(2) of the Act merely, to a challenge to the declaration made under Section 15(1) of the Act. There is also allegations of non-service of personal notices under Section 15(2) of the Act, and non-conduct of enquiry under Rule 5 read along with Section 15(3) of the Act. There was also an allegation in few petitions that a road was proposed to be formed along the dead alignment to accommodate the lands of a then Minister of the State Government, the alignment was changed. The change of alignment and want of inadequate hearings prior to the issuance of notification under Section 15(1) would broadly constitute the allegations herein.
2.3. Based on the allegations, the petitions can be grouped:
| W.P. No. | Nature of W.P. | Prayer |
| 19853 of 2011 | Certiorari | Challenge to notice under Sec. 16(2) on the ground notice under Sec. 15(2) was not given. [15(1) declaration issued Vide G.O. No. 15 dated 27.4.2011] |
| 21429 of 2011 | Mandamus | For a direction not to acquire without following Sec. 8 of the Act. Allegation of malafide directed against 5th respondent, at whose instance alignment was changed. |
| 7124 of 2012 7125 of 2012 7870 of 2012 8572 of 2012 4527 of 2013 | Mandamus/Certiorari | To consider the petitioner's objection for change of alignment of the proposed road, as Sec. 15(1) notification was passed without considering the objections of the petitioners in terms of Sec. 15(3) of the Act. |
| 35082 of 2012 | Declaration | Challenge to 15(1) on the allegation that objections under Sec. 15(3) was not considered and that it was in violation of Sec. 8 of the Act. Sec. 16(2) notice challenged consequently. |
| 29165 of 2014 | Certiorari | Challenge to notice under Sec. 16(2) on the ground no notice was given under Sec. 15(2) and that alignment was changed due to the influence of a politician and consequently notification under Sec. 15 (1) is bad. |
| 29166 of 2014 29167 of 2014 29168 of 2014 | Certiorari | Challenging to notification under Sec. 15(1) on the allegations: (I) That issuance of personal notice under Sec. 15(2) and paper publication are on different dates which is a procedural violation. (ii) Denial of effective opportunity to present objection under sec. 15(2); (iii) Effective hearing in terms of Rule 5 has not taken place. |
2.4. As shown in the table, the reliefs sought in the petitions ultimately challenge Sec. 15(1) notifications on grounds:
(a) That no notification is issued under Sec. 8 of the Act, fixing highway boundary line, building line and control line;
(b) No notice under Sec. 15(2) was issued, or objections of the petitioners were not considered (which includes cases where notices are issued under Sec. 16(2) of the Act to few of the petitioners requiring them to surrender possession of their respective properties).
3. Explaining the importance of the project, and detailing the administrative decisions taken to implement the project, the respondents place th
