VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed by the land owners who thought that their lands would be acquired for construction of a road and a railway overbridge. The main contention of the petitioners is that at the instance of interested parties the alignment of the road and the overbridge was being changed from time to time since 2003. Now it has reached a stage where the alignment virtually cuts across the properties of the petitioners and if minor changes are made in the alignment their properties could be saved.

(2.) IT is their further contention that the invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as LA Act) is bad in law as the proposal for construction of the aforesaid road and bridge started in the year 2003 and until now nothing has happened in the matter and therefore there was no necessity to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Railway and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.