Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Thomas Victor vs The Secretary Ministry Of Shipping Road ... on 5 July, 2023
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, Prashant Kumar Mishra
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.16 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).16129-16130/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-01-2022
in REV.APLC.(MD) No. 222/2017 18-04-2017 in WAMD No. 199/2017
passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras At Madurai)
THOMAS VICTOR & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 122992/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 131628/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 131627/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 05-07-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Raghavachari, Sr. Adv.
Ms. K. Abhirame, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Sheen Akkara, Adv.
Mr. B. Srmitraneshaa, Adv.
Ms. R. Shase, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C Arul Vadivel Alias Sekar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv.
Ms. Pariksha, Adv.
Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.
Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv.
Ms. Divya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.Signature Not Verified
Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv.Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA Date: 2023.07.12 13:19:08 IST Reason: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 As recorded in the order dated 12.09.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submitted that he would confine the case of the petitioners only in relation to adequate compensation being computed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In view of the aforesaid submission, notice was issued limited to the extent of compensation only.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to persuade this Court to consider the submission of the petitioners on merits also namely on the validity of acquisition of the subject land. He contended that the notification of acquisition issued under Section 3A as well as Section 3D(1) of the Act was issued in the name of the mother of the petitioners who had by then deceased. Therefore, the petitioners had no opportunity to object to the proposed acquisition.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to two judgments of this Court in the case of Nareshbhai Baghubai and Others vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 15 SCC 1 and the Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 477 wherein this Court had directed that the date of the acquisition be shifted so as to adequately compensate the land users while sustaining the acquisition. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the same approach could be adopted by this Court in the present case also.
Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 at the outset submitted that having made a preliminary 2 submission before this Court, restricting the scope of this Special Leave petition to compensation only, the petitioner cannot now seek to assail the acquisition on the ground that the notifications were issued in the name of a dead person. Secondly he also submitted that in the aforementioned decision, this Court was pleased to shift the date of preliminary notification based on the peculiar facts of those cases and having regard to sustaining the entire acquisition itself and to save the projects from being set aside. In the circumstances, we find that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that as a person interested in a subject land nothing prevented the petitioners from objecting to the acquisition. Further the scope of the proceeding has been restricted to only receiving adequate compensation.
Moreover, the Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court belatedly, subsequent to the passing of the Award. As the petitioners have confined their relief in these special leave petitions to seek adequate compensation only, the validity of the acquisition vis-a-vis the subject land cannot be gone into at this belated stage when the road has already been laid. In the result, the special leave petitions are disposed of vis-a-vis liberty to the petitioners to seek compensation in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
3