V RAJAKUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act in G. O. Ms. No. 92 dt. 25. 4. 2005 and published at Page Nos. 7 to 13 Section 2 of the Extraordinary Order of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 97 dated 25. 4. 2005.

(2.) AS far as the petitioner in W. P. No. 9557/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 146 sq. m. , in S. No. 280/1b1b, Kottivakkam Village. As far as the petitioner in W. P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, the extent acquired is 325 sq. m. in S. No. 282/1a2 in Kottivakkam Village and as far as the petitioners in W. P. No. 10460/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 125 sq. m. in S. No. 280/1g2 in Kottivakkam Village.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the lands were not acquired in equal extent from the middle of the highway. Consequence of this, though the petitioners' lands have been acquired, to remove the curves, so as to have a straight road, but, by acquiring unequal extent of land from the middle of the highway, curves have been created. According to the learned senior counsel, since, the Chief Engineer of the Highways Department is residing in the opposite side, the lands have been acquired to a lesser extent on the opposite side compared to the lands acquired from the petitioners. Learned senior counsel further argued that though objections have been raised by the petitioners, in the enquiry conducted, the Tahsildar has not forwarded the said objections to the Government. Consequence of this, in spite of raising objections, their objections were not considered before passing the impugned order. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, while rejecting the objections raised by the owner, specific reasons have to be given. But, without assigning any reason and without even considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed. That apart, according to the learned senior counsel, merely stating in the notification, that their objections were not considered is not sufficient, as such, prima facie the impugned orders have been passed without following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules.