G MUTHU AND ANOTHER Vs. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, owners of the properties in Survey No. 4/2A1, measuring 3150 Sq.Mt., and Survey No. 4/1B2, measuring 7899 Sq.Mt., respectively, situated in Nayakannur Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, has challenged the Gazette Notification No. 1844, dated 18.09.2012, issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the subsequent Gazette Notification No. 1259, dated 04.06.2013, issued under Section 3-D of the Act.

(2.) In the supporting affidavits, the petitioners have contended that the National Highways Authority of India, have decided to acquire the lands, for formation of National Highways from Tindivanam to Krishnagiri and issued Notification under Section 3-A of the Act, on 18.09.2012. It is the case of the petitioners that even prior to the issuance of the notification, the petitioners and other land owners, have submitted a letter, dated 18.04.2011, to the Competent Authority and the District Revenue officer, NH-7, 46, 47 and 66, Salem & Krishnagiri, National Highways Authority of India, Krishnagiri, 2nd respondent herein, and that the petitioners have also sent a letter, dated 16.04.2012, objecting to the acquisition of the lands. But, without considering the objections, the Special Tahsildar (LA), National Highways 66, Scheme-1, Uthangarai, 3rd respondent, has issued summons to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.01/2010 (Alagu-1), dated 04.09.2013. When the petitioners and the other villagers, questioned the action of respondents 2 and 3 herein, they were informed that a notification under Section 3-D of the Act, had already been issued and that therefore, question of considering the objections, does not arise.

(3.) Placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Natarajan v. Union of India, 2010 6 CTC 337, Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents are bound to hear the petitioners, before issuing the notification under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act. Contending inter alia that there is a failure on the part of the authorities in adhering to the mandate, they have prayed to quash the abovesaid notifications.