Writ petitions challenging the alignment for land acquisition were dismissed, upholding public interest over private grievances despite procedural irregularities.

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

All the writ petitions, except WP.No.10035 of 2021, have been filed challenging the impugned award dated 06.06.2024, Modified Alignment Report dated 22.06.2018, Detailed Project Report dated 12.06.2024 and the impugned Notifications dated 27.08.2024 & 28.02.2025.

2. The writ petition, in WP.No.10035 of 2021, has been filed to direct the respondents herein to consider and take appropriate action on the petitioners representation made on 21.12.2020 requesting them to form the proposed Radial Road (link Road) connecting OMR and ECR across Buckingham Canal, extension of Pallavaram and Thoraipakkam Radial Road in a straight line without any diversion or deviation and to form as a Radial Road

3. Petitioners' submissions:

3.1 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that in these cases, the main challenge was made against the formation of OMR-ECR link road by adopting Option-1, which is against the option suggested by the Technical Consultant, namely, M/s.Lantech Engineers Private Limited (hereinafter called as “Technical Consultant”).

3.2 Initially, the Technical Consultant was appointed by the Highways Department on 01.06.2012 for the purpose of conducting field survey. After conducting extensive survey, the Consultant had categorically recommended Option-2, connecting the link road to ECR at Km16/8, near Bharat Petrol Bunk, as the most feasible alignment. The Consultant found Option-1 (connecting ECR at Km16/9) which is 130 mtr away Option-2 ending point to pass through dense residential areas and cause significantly more displacement. However, contrary to the said report, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had rejected Option-2 without assigning any technical reason but merely noted that Option-1 was “already frozen by CMDA”.

3.3 According to the petitioners, the Technical Sub-Committee had mechanically adopted the unsupported recommendation, made by TAC, vide its meeting dated 26.09.2012. Thereafter, the State Level Steering Committee, in its meeting dated 29.10.2012, initially accepted the Consultants's Option-2 recommendation and directed an Action committee (Divisional Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Special Deputy Collector) to conduct a factual feasibility study and submit a detailed report. However, in the subsequent meeting of the Steering Committee held on 22.07.2013, the Highways Department claimed that the CMDA had already frozen Option-1, despite CMDA later affirming as follows:

a. It had no role in deciding the link-road alignment;

b. It had not frozen any alignment;

c. Alignment finalization was exclusively the responsibility of the Highways Department;

In spite of the above letter, the Steering Committee approved Option-1 alignment (OMR Km 17/0 to ECR Km 16/9) on 22.07.2013 without:

i) feasibility report directed to be submitted in its meeting on 29.10.2012,

ii) verifying the consultant's findings,

iii) any technical justification

iv) considering the impact on residential areas.

Therefore, according to the petitioners, the best alignment proposed by Technical Consultant was dumped without due consideration.

3.4 Hence, the actions of the Highways Department appears to be malefide and the State Level Steering Committee, without any application of mind, had approved Option-1 in an arbitrary manner without verifying the r