NATARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these batch of Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, hence, by consent, they are all taken up together for common disposal. The pleadings in all these cases are almost identical.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, originally, Section 3-A notification was issued to them by the first respondent on 26.10.2007, for the purpose of acquiring lands only for widening National Highways-67 i.e., KM 284.600 to 332.600 (Karur - Coimbatore). The petitioners raised their objections. Subsequently, Section 3-C enquiry was held on 08.01.2008 by the second respondent. As the second respondent failed to furnish a copy of the order passed by him under Section 3-C(2) of the National Highways Act (for short, "The Act") and he proceeded further and recommended for Section 3-D declaration by the first respondent, who has ultimately passed the order, without application of mind. Therefore, earlier, the Petitioners filed separate Writ Petitions, challenging the Section 3-D declaration on various grounds. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court on 03.02.2010. Against the said order, Writ Appeals were filed, which were allowed by this Court on 09.11.2010. As per the judgment in Writ Appeals, the second respondent's order dated 08.01.2008 and the consequential orders were quashed. Ultimately, in the said judgment, this Court has also observed that, "Needless to say that after complying with requirements of law, the respondents shall proceed in the matter". After the judgment in Writ Appeals, the petitioners, in their letter dated 20.12.2010 contended that the very proceedings cannot be proceeded further on the grounds, such as, (i) There is one year limitation period prescribed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3-D of the Act, for issuing Section 3-D declaration from the date of Section 3-A notification. According to the petitioners, the period is already over. There cannot be any Section 3-C enquiry, without notifying a fresh Section 3-A notification; (ii) The Central Government has not sanctioned the project technically; (iii) The technical feasibility has not been properly considered and the alignment has been selected without studying the other possible alignment; (iv) The alignment so proposed is because of the wrong doing of the private consultant and it would increase the cost. The petitioners also submitted three alignment proposals. According to the petitioners, inspite of filing of separate petitions on 09.05.2011, raising the preliminary issue, the conduct of the Section 3-C enquiry is not correct and according to them, no enquiry was conducted on 09.05.2011, but the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings on 22.06.2011, which were served on them only on 08.07.2011, so as to prevent the petitioners from challenging the order passed under Section 3-D declaration. Therefore, the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is passed without giving any reasonable opportunity and following the principles of natural justice and alternative way suggested by the petitioners were put away to the so called Technical Experts for opinion.

(3.) FOR the above said counter, the petitioners have filed a common reply affidavit. They would mainly deny that possession has been taken on 15.06.2010. They would deny that one year limitation question can be raised only after the completion of Section 3-C(2) enquiry and Section 3-D declaration. According to them, if the law under Section 3-D(2) specifically mandates that Section 3-A notification would lapse, if Section 3-A declaration is not published within one year from the date of Section 3-D notification, the respondents ought not to have proceeded further. They would also deny that the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioners passes through ponds, wells, irrigation tank and other water bodies. They would contend that the original Section 3-D(1) declaration, dated 23.05.2008, was quashed and the consequential orders thereon were also quashed and if any Section 3-D(1) declaration is published after the filing of these Writ Petitions, as per the original notification under Section 3-A(1), dated 26.10.2007, the same is illegal.