Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Premier Leather Corporation - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamill Nadu - Respondent
Writ Petition No.29765 of 2024 & WMP.Nos.32445, 32446, 32449 & 39093 of 2024
Decided on : 03-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a notification regarding land acquisition for constructing a sky walk, alleging that the notification was published in the District Gazette instead of the required Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and that proper procedures for hearing objections were not followed.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the Act, leading to the quashing of the notification.
Issues: The core issues were whether the notification's publication in the District Gazette satisfied statutory requirements and if the Collector could properly hear objections prior to making a decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the notification must be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and the Collector could not hear and decide on objections in the same capacity, as it undermines the statutory scheme requiring checks and balances.
Result: Writ petition allowed; acquisition proceedings quashed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, SC for Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, AG assisted by both Mr.A.Selvendran, Mr.R.Sivakumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquisition procedure and objections (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenging notification pursuant to land acquisition. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments against acquisition and legality (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. maintainability of writ petitions after award (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. significance of compliance with statutory procedures (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. definitions and designation of authority in land acquisition (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. distinction between roles of collector and appropriate government (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. grounds for questioning acquisition decisions (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. case law regarding objections and acquisition process (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. importance of notification publication in proper gazette (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. conclusion on the validity of acquisition proceedings (Para 35) |
| 12. final ruling on writ petition (Para 36) |
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification in proceedings in R.C.No.3989/2023/B1 dated 22.1.2024 on the file of the third respondent - District Collector culminating in proceedings bearing reference No.Rc.3989/2023/B1,No.VI(1)/459/2024 dated 17.6.2024 issued by the third respondent.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents, assisted by both the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
3. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows :
(i) The petitioners are the owners of the properties in S.Nos. 157B/1A and 158A/1A1, Kilambakkam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengelpet District. An extent of 5 cents in S.No.158/A was acquired for expansion of Grand Southern Trunk Road. After subdividing the acquired land, the remaining extent was assigned S.Nos.157B/1A and 158A/1A1.
(ii) The third respondent issued a Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act) stating that the land measuring an extent of 59 Ares in S.No. 158A/1A1 is required for construction of a sky walk connecting the proposed Kilambakkam Suburban Railway Station with Kilambakkam Bus Terminus. Objections were invited from the persons interested. The said Notification was published in the Times of India newspaper on 14.1.2024 and in the Chengelpet District Gazette on 03.2.2024. Even before the expiry of 60 days, the third respondent fixed the date for hearing the objections i.e. on 23.3.2024. On account of the same, the petitioners were not not able to collect the entire details of the measurements and the nature of construction to be carried out in the subject property.
(iii) The petitioners' lands are measuring 37.4 meters north to south and 156 meters east to west and the entire extent may not be required even if a sky walk is to be erected since only pillars are going to be raised to the height of 30 to 40 feet above the land. When the inquiry was fixed by the third respondent on 23.3.2024, the representative of the petitioners attended the hearing and submitted their objections.
(iv) The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent, who has to hear the objections and submit a report on the objections to the appropriate Government, rendered a decision on the objections without submitting a report to the State Government. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a Declaration under Section 19 (2) of the Act on 17.6.2024 stating that the lands are required for a public purpose. Aggrieved by that, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. When the matter came up for admission on 04.10.2024, this Court granted an order of status quo, which is extended subsequently from time to time. Pursuant to that, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit for himself and on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The fourth respondent filed a miscellaneous p
