M. MOHAN Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 2169 and 2170 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions, the original writ petitioner - original land owner has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.

(2.) That the lands in question owned by the petitioner herein - original land owner were required to construct Grade Separators on Periyar EVR Salai near Aminjakari, Nelson Manickam Road Junction and Anna Nagar 3rd Avenue junction, for the purpose of constructing a Flyover and Subway in the said location. The said lands were acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2001). That a notice under Sec. 15(2) of the Act, 2001 was issued inviting objections of owners and any other person having interest in the lands to be acquired to show cause as to why the lands may not be acquired. The petitioner herein - original land owner submitted his detailed objections and the notices were also sent to the highways authorities/department of the division concerned. According to the State, after considering the objections raised by the original land owner on the report submitted by the highways authorities, a notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, 2001 was issued. The original land owners being aggrieved with the notification issued under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, 2001 filed writ petitions before the High Court contending, inter-alia, that the notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, 2001 is in violation of the procedure to be followed under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2003). It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that Rule 5 lays down the manner for publication of the public notice and the manner of conducting the enquiry. According to the original writ petitioner, before publishing a notice under Sec. 15(1), the Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector shall call upon the owner and any other person having interest in the land to show cause as to why the land may not be acquired. If objections are received from a person interested in the land, the Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the Highways Department. According to the original land owner, thereafter the Highways Department shall file, on or before the date fixed by the Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector a statement by way of an answer or response to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry and thereafter the Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector shall hear the objector and the Highways Department and record any evidence that may be produced by either party and on completion of the enquiry, the Collector shall submit all details of the enquiry to the Government to pass an order under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15. According to the original writ petitioner without waiting for the response from the Highways Department and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the objectors, the notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been issued, which is in clear violation of Rule 5 of Rules, 2003.

(3.) Shri Huzefa A. Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner - original land owner. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Ahmadi that in the present case before issuing notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, 2001, the procedure required to be followed under Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003, which was required to be strictly followed, have not been followed.