E.SUGANTHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions have been filed assailing the acquisition of the lands made by the respondents/National Highways Authority for the construction of six way lane as bad and the consequential notification issued u/s. 3 (D) (1) and Sec. 3 (G) (3) and (4) are perverse.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the lands and have been carrying on their export business activity in the said lands, thereby attracting a large volume of foreign exchange. It is the further case of the petitioners that for the purpose of laying down NH-5 Road of the Chennai - TADA Sec. , lands were sought to be acquired by issuance of Notification in the year 2000 u/s. 3 (A)(3) of the National Highways Act (for short 'the Act') to which the petitioners submitted their objections and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the objections were overruled and portion of the lands of the petitioners were acquired. However, even at that time, the respondents had stated that there would be no further acquisition of the balance lands of the petitioner.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that much to their shock and surprise, by issuance of Notification on 17/12/2009 u/s. 3 (A)(3) of the Act, further extent of about 912 sq. mtrs., along with building was sought to be acquired for the purpose of expansion of the National Highway and objections were called for to which the petitioners submitted their objections. However, the said objections were mechanically overruled by the respondents, which prompted the filing of W.P. No. 13413 of 2010 in which this Court had granted an order of interim stay of dispossession. However, this Court was informed about the letter dtd. 14/6/2012 of the 4th respondent about the lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings, which was recorded by this Court in its order dtd. 7/12/12 in W.P. No. 13413/10 while disposing of the writ petition. However, considering the fact that fresh notification had been issued by the respondents on 30/10/2012, the petitioner was granted liberty to agitate the same in the manner known to law.