The issuance of Section 3D Notification does not necessitate prior environmental clearance as it does not signify the commencement of construction activities.

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned Notification dated 08.03.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent and the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2.Brief facts of the case:

2.1 In the case on hand, initially, a notification dated 12.07.2018 came to be issued by the 1^st respondent for acquisition of subject lands, to an extent of 25941 Hectares, which spread across 25 villages, for public purpose, i.e., formation of the National Highway “NH 948A”. Out of the said total extent, the petitioner's land is about 0.8195 Hectares. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter dated 25.07.2018 to the 2^nd respondent, whereby he requested for personal hearing and also explained that there were no concrete alignment of proposed ring road and the remaining portion of the land will become redundant after the acquisition. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Surveyors had visited the subject land.

2.2 Thereafter, another letter dated 20.08.2018 was communicated by the petitioner to the respondents 2 & 3, wherein it was stated that the vacant lands towards edge of property could be used instead of petitioner's land for the purpose of forming the proposed road. On 15.10.2018, the 2^nd respondent issued notice to call upon the petitioner for enquiry, which was scheduled to be held on 25.10.2018. Purusant to the said notice, the petitioner had filed his objection dated 22.10.2018 before the 2^nd & 3^rd respondents and thereafter, attended the enquiry on 25.10.2018. However, according to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the petitioner's objection vide order dated 12.12.2018, without any proper consideration. Against the said order, a writ petition in WP.No.8186 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner, wherein, this Court, vide order dated 20.03.2019, had stayed the operation of the proceedings of Notification issued by the respondents. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2019 with a direction to conduct joint spot inspection and complete the proceedings.

2.3 During the pendency of the above writ petition, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned Notification dated 08.03.2019 by declaring that the subject land should be acquired. Aggrieved over the said notice, one of the present writ petitions, i.e., WP.No.29755 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner.

2.4 Pursuant to the order passed in WP.No.8186 of 2019, the said joint spot inspection was conducted on 22.06.2019. The petitioner's wife and son had attended the joint spot inspection and filed the additional objections before the 2^nd respondent. However, the 2^nd respondent had rejected the additional objections vide impugned order dated 25.06.2019, against which, the writ petition in WP.No.29753 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner.

3. Petitioner's submission:

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds against the respondents. The 1^st ground is pertaining to non-obtaining of Environment clearance prior to declaration under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). The 2^nd ground is pertaining to non-consideration of petitioner's objections.

3.2 As far as the 1^st ground is concerned, he would submit that in the Clause 7(f) of Schedule to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2016, it has been clearly stated that it is mandatory to obtain environment clearance for all projects and activities mentioned under Category A in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 km. In such case, the declaration under Section 3D of the Act, can be made only after obtaining the environment/forest clearance. To substantiate his submission, he referred to the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Project D