ALBERT EMMANUAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed the Learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.15155 of 2010, and batch of cases, dtd. 25/11/2022 in and by which the Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions praying this Court to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions under Sec. 3D(2) and 3(F) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as null and void and further to issue a certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records available on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the notifications under Sec. 3A(1) and 3-D(1&2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Sec. 3, Sub-Sec. (ii) dtd. 16/1/2009 and 27/7/2009 respectively, and that from the 2nd respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.A/Tha.Ma.A/NH.66/841/2007 dtd. 19/5/2009 proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A/PuVaSa/66-12/07 dtd. 31/3/2010 and the notice seeking possession of lands under Sec. 3E(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, dtd. 18/5/2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to receive back the amount paid to the respondent as compensation to the petitioners. It could be seen that the petitioners have not pressed their case in respect of the constitutional challenge to the provisions but persisted with the challenge to the acquisition of their lands alone, which is accordingly dealt with by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) The factual matrix in which the writ petitions arise is that a notification u/s 3-A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was published vide the Government of India notification in S.O.No.174(E), dtd. 16/1/2009 in the Gazatte and substance of the same was also published in two local newspapers. As per the publication, the aggrieved land owners can submit their objections within a period of 21 days. The appellants/writ petitioners have also submitted their objections to the competent authority on 27/2/2009 and 2/3/2009. After considering the remarks of the third respondent, namely, the Project Director, dtd. 31/3/2009 and after affording a personal hearing on 9/4/2009, the second respondent passed an order under Sec. 3(C)(2) of the Act, on 9/5/2009 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. The said order was also communicated to all the petitioners. Thereafter, a proposal was sent to the Central Government and after careful scrutiny, Sec. 3(D) declaration was made on 27/7/2009, thereby vesting the properties of the appellants with the Central Government. The declarations were also published in two leading newspapers including in the Tamil language. Thereafter, all the appellants participated in the award enquiry, and after scrutinizing the records, compensation was fixed, and an award was passed on 31/3/2010. According to the award, the compensation amount was also disbursed to all the petitioners during the month of May/June 2010, and they received the same. Thereafter, the above writ petitions were filed by the petitioners on 7/7/2010, challenging the entire land acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The specific case of the petitioners is that, the project was to form four lane National Highway between Puducherry and Tindivanam i.e., starting from the Indira Gandhi statute in Puducherry 0/000 kms upto 37/920 kms in Tindivanam. Of the same, as there was already four lane from 0/000 kms upto 3/600 kms. Therefore, a notification was issued only to acquired lands falling within the chainage of 3/600 kms to 37/920 kms. The petitioners even though made objections on other grounds, genuinely thought that their lands also fall within the chainage as mentioned in the notification, and therefore, participated in the award enquiry and received the compensation and did not challenge the land acquisition notification as they thought that the land is required for the purpose of formation/widening of the National Highways and that the Authorities under the eminent domain are entitled to acquire the same and the objections of the petitioners would only be futile. But, however, when the respondent authorities cleared the debris, bushes on the berms of the road and marked the actual chainages on the road, the appellants realized that their lands actually did not fall within the stretch of the land from 3/600 kms to 37/920 kms, wherein only there is scope for the public purpose where the lands were required for the purpose of widening/four laning the road. Therefore, the petitioners made a representation to the authorities on 28/6/2010, and the respondents were about to proceed further with the possession notices, they filed the present Writ Petition on 7/7/2010 and an interim order of Status Quo was also granted on 19/7/2010.