N. MANU Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 15450 of 2010, Mr. S. Arivazhagan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 15585 to 15589 of 2012, Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Spl. G.P. appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and impleaded sixth respondent and Mr. V. Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded fifth respondent. What is challenged in these Writ Petitions is the notice of communication issued after issuance of notices under Sections 15(1), 15(2) and 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to take over possession, vide impugned proceedings in Letter No. CMDP/CMRL/Vadapazhani/ADE -I, dated 4.6.2012, seeking to quash the same.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they are all owners of the lands in question. As there was proposal for acquisition of the lands for the construction of Grade Separator at NSK Road and Inner Ring Road at Vadapazhani, the respondents have proceeded under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and issued notices under Sections 15(1), 15(2) of the Act and thereafter they have proceeded to possess the lands under Section 16(2) of the Act by issuing the impugned communication. At this stage, the petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned notice of communication to take over the possession, are before this Court, challenging the same on the ground that the possession notification is ex -facie untenable and deserves to be set aside, as it is vitiated for want of issuance of statutory notice and enquiry.

(3.) SIMILAR lines of statements have been made by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioners contending as follows: