Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Albert Emmanual - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping Road Transport & Highways and Ors. – Respondents
W.A.Nos.174, 173, 175, 178, 179, 180, 183, 176, 177 and 181 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos.1685, 1683, 1684, 1688, 1692, 1695, 1687, 1680, 1682 and 1686 of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N. Subramaniyan.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Asst. by Mr. B. Rabu Manoharan, Mr. P. Muthukumar, Mrs. S.R. Sumathy.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that land acquisition proceedings can be challenged after the passing of the award in exceptional cases, and the acquisition must be for a public purpose. The court emphasized the importance of truth and clear particulars in the authorities' submissions and held that the acquisition proceedings must be bonafide and necessary for the public purpose.

Headnote:
National Highways Act - Land Acquisition - Section 3D(2) and 3(F) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions under Section 3D(2) and 3(F) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and their application to the acquisition of lands for the purpose of widening/four laning the road. The court highlighted the legal principles related to the validity of land acquisition proceedings, the requirement for a public purpose, and the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions challenged the acquisition of lands for the widening/four laning of a National Highway. The petitioners contended that their lands were mistakenly acquired and not required for the public purpose mentioned in the notification. They sought to quash the acquisition proceedings and repay the compensation received.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the acquisition proceedings were not bonafide and the lands were not needed for the public purpose. It held that the notifications under Sections 3(A) and 3(D) of the Act were liable to be set aside as they related to the petitioners' lands. The court also directed the petitioners to redeposit the compensation amount with interest, failing which the writ petitions would stand dismissed.
Issues: The court considered whether the writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings were maintainable after the passing of the award and receipt of compensation, whether the lands were acquired in accordance with law for the public purpose mentioned in the notification, and the relief to which the parties were entitled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings could be challenged after the passing of the award in exceptional cases, such as when the acquisition was not for a public purpose or when there was a violation of fair hearing and natural justice. It also emphasized the importance of truth and clear particulars in the authorities' submissions. The court found that the acquisition proceedings were not bonafide and the lands were not needed for the public purpose, leading to the quashing of the notifications under Sections 3(A) and 3(D) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were allowed, the common order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed on the condition that the petitioners redeposit the compensation amount with interest. The notifications and proceedings related to the lands of the petitioners were quashed, and there were no orders as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

(D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

(Prayer in W.A.No.174 of 2023 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 25.11.2022 in W.P.No.15155 of 2010.)

A. The Appeals :

These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed the Learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.15155 of 2010, and batch of cases, dated 25.11.2022 in and by which the Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions praying this Court to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions under Section 3D(2) and 3(F) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as null and void and further to issue a certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records available on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the notifications under Section 3A(1) and 3-D(1&2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-Section(ii) dated 16.01.2009 and 27.07.2009 respectively, and that from the 2nd respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.A/Tha.Ma.A/NH.66/841/2007 dated 19.05.2009 proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A/PuVaSa/66-12/07 dated 31.03.2010 and the notice seeking possession of lands under Section 3E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, dated 18.05.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to receive back the amount paid to the respondent as compensation to the petitioners. It could be seen that the petitioners have not pressed their case in respect of the constitutional challenge to the provisions but persisted with the challenge to the acquisition of their lands alone, which is accordingly dealt with by the Learned Single Judge.

B. The Brief Facts Leading to the Writ Petitions:

2. The factual matrix in which the writ petitions arise is that a notification u/s 3-A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was published vide the Government of India notification in S.O.No.174(E), dated 16.01.2009 in the Gazatte and substance of the same was also published in two local newspapers. As per the publication, the aggrieved land owners can submit their objections within a period of 21 days. The appellants/writ petitioners have also submitted their objections to the competent authority on 27.02.2009 and 02.03.2009. After considering the remarks of the third respondent, namely, the Project Director, dated 31.03.2009 and after affording a personal hearing on 09.04.2009, the second respondent passed an order under Section 3(C)(2) of the Act, on 09.05.2009 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. The said order was also communicated to all the petitioners. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to the Central Government and after careful scrutiny, Section 3(D) declaration was made on 27.07.2009, thereby vesting the properties of the appellants with the Central Government. The declarations were also published in two leading newspapers including in the Tamil language. Thereafter, all the appellants participated in the award enquiry, and after scrutinizing the records, compensation was fixed, and an award was passed on 31.03.2010. According to the award, the compensation amount was also disbursed to all the petitioners during the month of May/June 2010, and they received the same. Thereafter, the above writ petitions were filed by the petitioners on 07.07.2010, challenging the entire land acquisition proceedings.

C. The case of the petitioners:

3. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the project was to form four lane National Highway between Puducherry and Tindivanam i.e., starting from the Indira Gandhi statute in Puducherry 0/000 kms upto 37/920 kms in Tindivanam. Of the same, as there was already four lane from 0/000 kms upto 3/600 kms. Therefore, a notification was issued only to acquired lands falling within the chainage of 3/600 kms to 37/920 kms. The petitioners even though made objections on other grounds, genuinely thought that their lands also fall within the chainage as mentioned in the notification, and therefore, participated in the award enquiry and receive