K RAJESH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are owners of the land in R.S.No,3815/4 (part) and R.S.No,3815/15 in Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District, measuring 700, 1180 and 780 sq.ft. On 11.04.2008, they were served Form 6 Notice, issued under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (in short, "the Act"), whereupon they came to know that the respondents had initiated land acquisition proceedings against their lands for construction of sub-way near Korukkupet Railway level crossing. By the said notice, they were directed to appear in person on 02.05.2008 before the third respondent to submit a written statement, showing their interest in the lands and the superstructure thereon. Thereafter, on enquiry, they noticed that the first respondent had passed G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 10.12.2007, according administrative sanction for acquiring their lands along with others, invoking the urgency provision of Section 17 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved over the same, they filed writ petitions, challenging Section 4 (1) Notification and the consequential notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents was that the Government had proposed to construct a sub-way near Korukkupet railway level crossing on Thyagappa Chetty Street and Kannan Street in Tondiarpet Village, considering the traffic congestion, future need, abatement of pollution and fuel economy notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 were served on the appellants in view of urgency, they had to resort to urgency provision hence, Section 5-A enquiry was not mandatory publication was effected both in Tamil and English dailies, namely, "Malai Malar" and "Business Standard" respectively on 14.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 the Government had called for a report from Corporation of Chennai and after obtaining the opinion of the expert body and analysing the technical feasibilities for construction of the overbridge and also studying all the ground realities, sanction was accorded and land acquisition proceedings were initiated, invoking the urgency clause.

(3.) THE second contention is that in view of the construction of railway overbridge at Meenambal Nagar gate, the traffic has to be diverted only through the railway level crossing at Thyagappa Chetty Street, which is more than 5 kms., and, therefore, the respondents ought not to have invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Act.