Madras High Court
B.Srihari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 June, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.No.79 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 21.03.2024
Orders Pronounced on : 28.06.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.79 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.78 and 80 of 2024
--
B.Srihari .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Land Administration Department,
Chepauk, Madras-600 005.
3. The District Collector, Coimbatore-641 018.
4. Land Acquisition Officer and
District Revenue Officer,
No.8/1A, Huzur Road,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore-641 018.
5. The Special Officer,
The Land Acquisition & Management,
& District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore-641 108. .. Respondents
Page No.1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.79 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the
file of the fourth respondent in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.24885/2003/Voo6, dated
10.02.2021, published in The Hindu newspaper and the consequential
proceedings in Na.Ka.64/2022/Ni.A4, dated 15.11.2023 on the file of the fifth
respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction
and to further direct the fourth respondent to re-consider the proposed
acquisition in S.No.52/1B, situated in Villankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk and
District and acquire lands evenly on both sides of Tahneer Pandal Road, Avinasai
Salai, Villanvangkurichi Village, Singanallur-Peelamedu, Coimbatore North Taluk,
Coimbatore.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for
M/s.V.Pavithra
For respondents: Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Addl.G.P.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.24885/2003/Voo6, dated 10.02.2021, published in The Hindu newspaper and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.64/2022/Ni.A4, dated 15.11.2023 on the file of the fifth respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and to further direct the fourth respondent to re-consider the proposed acquisition in S.No.52/1B, situated in Villankurichi Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District and Page No.2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 acquire lands evenly on both sides of Tahneer Pandal Road, Avinasai Salai, Villanvangkurichi Village, Singanallur-Peelamedu, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property comprised in S.No.52/1B, Block-12 and Ward No.26, situated at No.151, Thaneer Pandal Road, B.R.Puram, Peelamedu, Villankurichi Village, Coimbatore District. In the year 2007, the Highways Department issued a Notification for proposal for construction of over-bridge and the same was also approved by the Railway Authority. The respondents issued Notification on 10.02.2021 for the proposed acquisition of the property. The petitioner's property was situated on the corner of the Thaneer Road and Avinashi Road. After various objections and representations from the land owners, the plan was altered and without notice, the authority marked a portion of the petitioner's property of an extent of 13.9m x 13.7m. The petitioner is running hotel business in the same number and proposed portion is only one available for the entry and exit of the customers. Hence, left with no other option, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5867 of 2010, which was disposed of on 28.11.2016 with directions. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.2873 of 2022 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner. W.P.no.2873 of 2022 was disposed of on 18.02.2022 with direction. Though the petitioner was called for enquiry on various occasions, none of the petitioner's objections have been considered. The Page No.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 present proposal for acquisition would not only affect the petitioner's business, but also affect the future income of the petitioner from the property. The respondents continued with their attempt to acquire the properties. Hence, severe prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief stated supra.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating as follows:
(a) The Administrative sanction for the work of "Construction of Railway Over Bride at KM 0/6 of Thaneer Pandal Road in lieu of existing Level Crossing No.6 at Railway KM 6/15-17 in between Singanallur-Peelamedu Railway Station, was accorded for a sum of Rs.12.65 crores in G.O.Ms.No.210, Highways and Minor Ports (H.Q.2), dated 11.10.2006 under Railway Work Project. In view of the same, acquisition proposals were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. An extent of 989 Square Meters of land had been proposed to acquire for this project. As required under the above Act, preliminary Notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, dated 10.02.2021 was published in the local Tamil and English newspapers on 12.02.2021. At this stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10856 of 2021 before this Court to quash the notice. This Court, by order dated 29.04.2021, dismissed the said W.P.No.10856 of 2021, observing it as not maintainable, since it had been filed prematurely and directed the third respondent to consider the objection filed by the petitioner within 12 weeks. An enquiry in this regard was conducted on 14.07.2021 with Page No.4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 the land owners to give them an opportunity to represent their objections, if any.
(b) The petitioner's land comprised in S.F.No.52/1B ad-measuring 192.00 Square Meters is also covered in the acquisition process. The petitioner approached for the above enquiry and submitted his objection, i.e. to reduce the extent of his land to be acquired at the junction where Thaneer Pandal Road and Avinashi Road meets on the Eastern side and the same extent of land is to be acquired on the Western side junction also. In respect of the objection regarding the reduction of the extent, the requisitioning (Highways) Department remarked that only necessary extent has been proposed in the junction on Eastern side and regarding the extent proposed for acquisition on Western Side, the land owner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.34708, 34712, 34837 of 2023 by objecting the acquisition and has obtained an order of stay.
(c) Prior to filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner's objections were received from the requisition (Highways) Department and the same were considered and over-ruled and an order under Section 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, was passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.LA-
V3/5906750/2023, dated 06.11.2023, which has also been served on the petitioner on 15.11.2023, who has also received the copy of the order with objection. The notice under Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, was issued by the fifth respondent to all the land owners to determine the land value for the land to be acquired, vide No.Na.Ka.64/2022/LA4, dated 15.11.2023 to Page No.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 appear for the enquiry on 24.11.2023 at 3 p.m. before the fifth respondent. The petitioner had also attended the enquiry conducted on 24.11.2023. In the meanwhile, final Notification under Section 15(1) of the said Act was published in the Government Gazette, vide No.46, dated 22.11.2023. After that, an Award Enquiry notice under Sections 19(5) and 19(7) of the said Act, requesting all the and land owners to appear for the enquiry so as to pass final Award proceedings in respect of the lands to be acquired, was issued to the land owners to appear on 05.01.2024 at 3 p.m. before the fifth respondent with necessary land ownership and other documents. The petitioner who appeared for the enquiry again raised his objection to reduce the extent of his land to be acquired. The fifth respondent has already communicated the order of the second respondent, in which the objection had been rejected for the reasons stated therein and now, at the final land acquisition stage of passing the Award proceedings, his objection on the same cause cannot be entertained, as the Railway Department has already completed the construction of Railway Bridge on the Railway Track portion as per the possible alignment required.
(d) As per the provisions of Section 15(1) of the said Act, if the Government is satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of any Highways or for construction of bridges, culverts, etc., the Government may acquire such land by publishing a Notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Before publishing a Notice under Section 15(2), the Government shall Page No.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 call upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to show cause within such time to give the opportunity to express objections, if any and such notice under Section 15(2) had been issued on 05.07.2021 to the petitioner, among other land owners, giving them an opportunity to express their claims and objections within 30 days of publication, after the Notification had been published in the local newspapers. An enquiry in this regard was also conducted on 14.07.2021 by the fourth respondent. The petitioner and the other land owners have filed their objections, which were sent to the requisitioning Department, i.e. the Highways Department for getting technical remarks.
(e) In the meantime, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10856 of 2021 before this Court, challenging the said notice pertaining to the land acquisition. On 29.04.2021, this Court dismissed the above case as not maintainable, with a direction to the respondent(s) to consider his objection on its filing by the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks in accordance with law. Further, the remarks over the objections raised by the petitioner, were received from the requisitioning (Highways) Department, as requested by the fourth respondent. Thereafter, order was passed for objection raised by the petitioner, by the fourth respondent, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.24885/2008/F6, dated 28.02.2022.
(f) The petitioner has wrongly presumed that the notice dated 15.11.2023 is a non-speaking order. It is not an order, but it is a notice under Section 19(2) of the said Act to attend the enquiry on 24.11.2023 in connection with Page No.7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 determining the land value for the lands to be acquired and it has been sent to all the land owners from whom the lands are acquired for the Railway Over- Bridge construction purpose. The petitioner cannot expect any explanation over his objection in this enquiry notice.
(g) A sum of Rs.11,848.43/- per square meter, has been fixed by the respondents, as the land value for the land acquired in this project following the guidelines issued by the Government now and then. As constructed by the petitioner, no discrimination could be shown in fixing the land value as the petitioner's part of portion of land is facing Avinashi Road. The petitioner projects that his individual benefit is deprived because of this project. When several writ petitioners were filed against the acquisition in this Court, this Court, in the order dated 03.03.2023 in W.P.No.12886 of 2018, etc., observed as follows:
"24. It is seen that the petitioners have put spokes even to the approval of the plan. They have their private interests in running a school and having a factory, but that private interest has to be balanced with public interest. As responsible citizens, they should make way and permit the Bridge to be constructed over the level crossing. I am sure that the petitioners would not accept fault on their part and would blame the Highways Department and the Railways, if God forbid, there was to be an accident at the level crossing Page No.8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 involving a student of the school or a workmen of the factory. The Road Over Bridge is required. It is a matter of policy of the Government and of the Railways. It is in public interest. It could prevent accidents. It would enable free movement of the public."
(h) The petitioner cannot put his averment over the traffic flow that would result after the land acquisition. The Highways Technical experts are only the authorities to examine and decide about the technical feasibility of construction of "Railway Over Bridge", laying connectivity roads to regulate the traffic flow, etc.
(i) A detailed study had been done before getting approval of the construction of the project and based on the opinion of Technical Experts, the project has been finalised and area to be acquired has also been proposed.
(j) This Court granted interim stay on 08.01.2024 in W.M.P.Nos.78 and 80 of 2024 in W.P.No.79 of 2024 and due to this interim order, the acquisition proceedings are stopped, leading to delay in bringing the project, which is helpful for the entire public.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the objections of the petitioner had not been taken into consideration and the respondent-Department passed the order without conducting due enquiry and Page No.9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 they are conducting acquisition without any reasonable justification when the entry point to the hotel business is through the Avinashi Road and not through the Thanner Panthal Road. The acquisition would cause undue prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as a business holder. There is no scientific assessment made to acquire the lands for a splay. In the event of the respondents continue with their attempt to acquire the petitioner's holding, the petitioner would be put to grave prejudice.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that already, the acquisition proceedings started and the petitioner has been filing writ petition after writ petition on various dates and the Courts also had dismissed those writ petitions. In one of such writ petition, this Court in W.P.No.12886 of 2018, etc., by order dated 03.03.2023, observed as extracted in the preceding paragraph of this order.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader further stated that for controlling and regulating the traffic flow, the Highways Department decided to construct a Railway Over Bridge (RoB) over the Railway's lands. The technical expert had also conducted field inspection and based on the report of the technical expert, the respondents-authorities had decided to construct the RoB being the subject matter of the project that has been finalised only based on the technical expert's opinion and therefore, even in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, the authorities have clearly expressed their view despite the Page No.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 petitioner filing petition after petitions and atlast they have obtained interim order and based on the interim order, the project could not be proceeded with, and therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, the acquisition has been made based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and the Government has considered construction of RoB being the policy decision and only in order to regulate and control the traffic flow and after obtaining detailed study, approval has been obtained for the construction of the RoB and only based on the opinion of the technical expert, the project was being proceeded with. Further, the Court is not expert in this field of construction of FoB and the Court has to only testify as to whether any procedural violation has been committed and whether there is any denial of opportunity of hearing to the parties.
9. In this case, the petitioner has filed various writ petitions at various stages, in which the contentions of the writ petitioners have also been rejected and however, the respondents have considered all the factual aspects and after completing all the procedural formalities as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, the project in question has been proceeded with.
10. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen that the construction of the RoB is absolutely necessary in order to control and regulate the flow of traffic, and therefore, in order to complete the project of Page No.11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 RoB, it is for the respondents-Department to decide based on the opinion of the technical experts and in this case, the respondents have duly obtained the report/opinion of the technical experts and based on which, they have decided to get the approval, which has also been approved and report has also been obtained for continuing with the project, and in the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the interest of the public would be the paramount consideration and this Court does not find any procedural violation and the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this Writ Petition.
11. Further, already, writ petitions have been filed challenging the acquisition in various stages of acquisition and this Court has also considered the same and also the representations of the petitioner have been considered and the petitioner was subsequently called for enquiry and now the respondents have considered the grievances of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in proceeding with the project in this case. There are no mala-fides or illegality in the impugned project of construction of the RoB. The interest of the larger public has to be the paramount consideration and considering the facts an circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
12. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are closed. Page No.12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 28.06.2024 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/no Neutral Citation : Yes/no cs To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Madras-600 005.
3. The District Collector, Coimbatore-641 018.
4. Land Acquisition Officer and District Revenue Officer, No.8/1A, Huzur Road, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore-641 018.
5. The Special Officer, The Land Acquisition & Management, & District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore-641 108.
Page No.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 P.VELMLURUGAN, J cs Pre-delivery Order in Page No.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.79 of 2024 W.P.No.79 of 2024 Order Pronounced on 28.06.2024 Page No.15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis