K SELVARAJ Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the Notification issued by the 1st respondent under Sec. 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter called as "the Act"] acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner for constructing truck lay byes as a part of development of Chennai Outer Ring Road Phase-I along the periphery of Chennai Metropolitan Area in Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District as proposed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.

(2.) The common case of the petitioners in all these writ petition, in brief, is as follows:- The petitioners are the owners of the respective lands referred to above which are situated at Thookkanampattu Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [in short, "the CMDA"] as a part of its Second Master Plan has proposed to develop the Outer Ring Road [ORR] along the periphery of Chennai Metropolitan Area in Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District of Tamil Nadu. The Outer Ring Road connects NH-45 (GST Road) at Vandalur and NH-4 (GWT Road) at Nazarathpet and NH-205 at Nemilichery. The above said outer ring road intersects 5 major roads namely, NH-45, NH-4, NH-205, NH5 and Thiruvottiyur - Ponneri - Panchetti Road. An administrative sanction was obtained for the acquisition of additional private lands and transfer of Government poramboke lands in Tiruvallur District for the construction of bus byes, truck lay byes, junction improvements and wayside amenities and also interchanges in Chennai Outer Ring Road, Phase-I. Thereafter, a notification under Sec. 15(2) of the Act was issued on 29.05.2013, calling upon the respective land owners to give their objections, if any, for acquisition of the lands for providing truck lay bye with a total extent of 9140 square feet of lands and the enquiry was fixed on 18.06.2013. In the mean time, all the petitioners had submitted their objections stating that already a major portion of their lands were acquired for the formation of outer ring and after such acquisition, the remaining portion of the lands have been classified as primary residential zone in the Second Master Plan. Constructing truck lay bye is a commercial activity which is not permissible under the primary residential zone. That apart, if hazardous and dangerous explosives laden commercial vehicles and LPG tankers which are highly inflammable are allowed to be parked near the residential zone, the same would disturb the peaceful atmosphere in the primary residential zone. Further, according to the petitioner, along the very same ring road already truck terminus are planned at 10 places and a truck yard is situated hardly within 6 kms from the land which are proposed to be acquired and as such there is no necessity to provide another truck lay bye by acquiring the petitioners' lands. That apart, if the truck lay bye is permitted, there is likelihood of dumping and spitting of wastes and plastic materials which would certainly lead to an environmental pollution in the locality.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that after the receipt of their objections, the Land Acquisition Officer did not conduct any enquiry and no order has been passed on their objections as contemplated under Sec. 15(3) of the Act r/w Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"]. According to the petitioners, after the receipt of their objection and remarks from the requisitioning body, an enquiry should be conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer should record the statement of the petitioner and thereafter only, the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to submit his report to the Government for passing appropriate orders under Sec. 15(3) of the Act. But, no such enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Even though the notices were issued under Sec. 15(2) of the Act calling for objections from the petitioners stating that the lands are sought to be acquired for providing truck lay bye, in the notification issued under Sec. 15(1) of the Act, a different reason was set forth as the lands were sought to be acquired for the construction of interchanges at NH-4 in Chennai Outer Ring Road at Thookkanampattu which is totally a different purpose than what was mentioned in the notice under Sec. 15(2) of the Act. The petitioners were not provided with any opportunity to raise their objections for the above purpose. That apart, no publication of Sec. 15(2) notice was effected in the widely circulated local daily and the entire acquisition proceedings was initiated as the mandatory requirements under the Act were not followed. According to the petitioner, notice under Sec. 15(2) of the Act was issued without fixing the highway line boundary and building line and control line, as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Act, and the procedure contemplated under Sec. 8(1) of the Act, which is a condition precedent for invoking Sec. 15(2) of the Act, has not been followed and without fixing the highway boundary line, building line and control line, acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated and as such, the petitioner contended that the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed in its entirety.