Madras High Court
T.A.Mohamed Ali Jawahar vs The Chief Engineer Highways on 20 November, 2018
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20672, 15279 and 15280 of 2018
T.A.Mohamed Ali Jawahar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer Highways,
NABARD and Village Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
NABARD and village salai,
Tirunelveli.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
5.Raja Pushpam ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the third respondent's communication in Ka.No.
14/2014/EVaA.2 dated .01.2018 signed on 17.01.2018 and quash
the same and direct the third respondent to change the alignment
of the scheduled by-pass road towards the south by leaving 50% of
petitioner's land to continue the business in Door No.4/28B, Survey
Nos.24/1A, 1B and 25/1C1, 1C2 and 1B, Door No.4/28B,
Ambasamuthiram Road, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, within a
period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Rajarajan
Government Advocate
For R5 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
ORDER
The petitioner's lands are the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001. The petitioner claims that he is running an industrial unit in the lands in question. He therefore, wanted a nominal realignment of the proposed road. In this regard, he gave representations. He followed up by filing W.P.(MD)Nos.962 of 2014 and 995 of 2014. By order dated 03.08.2017, this Court permitted http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the petitioner to file his objection before the competent authority and the competent authority was called upon to take a decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of due hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the present order of rejection came to be passed. Questioning the same this writ petition has been filed.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. He also submitted that the authority chose to pass a mechanical order without conducting the spot inspection.
3.Though, the case of the petitioner is quite persuasive, this Court is not in a position to grant any substantial relief. This is because of the limitation inherent in the very scope of judicial review in such matters. The petitioner is seeking re-alignment of the proposed road. These are the matters that are better decided by the experts in the field. It would not be open to this Court to suggest a particular re-alignment as more desirable.
4. In this case, the authorities have filed a counter affidavit and pointed out that any re-alignment as proposed by the writ petitioner would cause more accidents in view of the change in the road profile. As of now, the proposed road would be a straight one. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 If the alignment is changed it would cause bad geometry on the road profile.
5.The apprehension set out in the counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) cannot be brushed aside by this Court. It is also pointed out that the acquisition process in the bye- pass road has reached an advanced stage. In the order impugned in the writ petition, the competent authority has categorically stated that it is not feasible to accede to the suggestions put forth by the writ petitioner.
6.This Court is not in a position to interfere with the said stand taken by the authorities. However, it must be noted that the petitioner is running a industrial unit in the land in question and therefore when compensation is quantified, the possible loss that would be suffered by the petitioner will have to be necessarily taken into account.
7.With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8.The dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the authorities from taking any stand in favour of the writ petitioner later.
20.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pnn
To
1.The Chief Engineer Highways,
NABARD and Village Salai,
Guindy,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and village salai, Tirunelveli.
4.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
pnn W.P.(MD)No.17368 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20672, 15279 and 15280 of 2018 20.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in