Madras High Court
N.Tamil Selvi vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2018
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 04.10.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 21.12.2018
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.7681 of 2013
and MP.Nos.2 &3 of 2013
N.Tamil Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Union of India
Rep by its Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways Department
New Delhi.
2.National Highways Authority of India
Rep by its Project Director
Incharge of NH.45C
Vikravandi – Kumbakonam – Thanjavur Section
Thanjavur District.
3.The Competent Authority
viz. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways NH.45C
Vikravandi – Kumbakonam – Thanjavur Section
Tiruvarur. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records of the first respondent in
notification S.O.No.69 (E) published in the Gazette of India extraordinary No.65
part 2, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) dated 7.1.2013 at pages 1 to 14 and
consequential paper publication published in the Dailythanthi and New Indian
Express on 15.2.2013 by the third respondent under Section 3-A of National
Highways Act, 1956 and quash the same in respect of lands belonging to the
petitioner situate in Survey Nos.3/1A and 3/1B of Kanchanayakkanthottam
http://www.judis.nic.inVillage, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District as unconstitutional, arbitrary, non-
2
est in eye of law, and illegal and order to drop the acquisition proceedings in
respect of lands belonging to the petitioner situate in Survey Nos.3/1A and 3/1B
of Kanchanayakkanthottam Village, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
for Mr.C.Jagadish
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson for R2
Mr.C.Thirumaran, Spl Govt. Pleader
Assisted by Mr.M.Elumalai, Govt Advocate for R3
ORDER
Seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act as contravening the scheme of the Act, the petitioner herein has approached this Court. 1.1 The brief statement of facts are:
● The petitioner owns about 1.5 hectares of agricultural lands comprised in S.Nos.3/1A and 3/1B in Kanchanayakkanthottam Village, Thanjavur District. It lies adjacent to Vennar River. It is an agricultural property where the petitioner cultivates paddy. The petitioner purchased it in the year 1996.
● While so, a notification in S.O.69(E) was published under Gazette of India Extraordinary No.65 Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section(ii) dated 07.01.2013, under Sec.3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and it was followed by the publication of the substance of the notification under Sec.3-A(3) of the Act in an English and a vernacular newspapers both dated 15.02.2013. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 This notification pertains to conversion of NH-45 in the stretch from 100/000 to 165/000 km. This notification indicated the intent of the Central Government to acquire inter alia the petitioner's lands referred to above. The Government has not notified its declaration under Sec.3D of the National Highways Act yet.
1.2 The notification issued under Sec.3-A pertains to NH-45, but it runs about 2 km away from petitioner's land. This would imply that the proposed acquisition is not intended for acquiring the road margins of existing NH45, but intended for acquiring lands for the formation of a new road along a new stretch. Broadly, the procedure adopted by the Competent Authority constituted under the National Highways Act for acquiring land for forming a new road is contrary to the statutory scheme. The said notification is principally ridden with multiple flaws as enumerated below:
a) The proposed National Highway along the proposed new stretch would require construction of a new bridge across the Vennar River. This is an unnecessary wastage of public funds, more so because there already exists another bridge over the same Vennar River in the Thanjavur Town Outer Link bye-pass road. Secondly, the proposed new stretch would have to cut across a lake known by name 'Samuthram Eri' and is bound to affect eco-balance of the area. Ideally existing NH-45C running from Kumbakonam-Thanjavur could be widened rather than laying a parallel road cutting across fertile agricultural lands, destroying in the process, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 both farming, and the livelihood of farm/agricultural labourers. The proposed acquisition is soaked in arbitrary exercise of statutory power and hence is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
b) Every project involving the building of a new road requires environmental clearance for which a public hearing is required to be held. This has not happened. There therefore, is a violation of the Environmental Protection Act.
c) The notification refers only the survey numbers of the lands proposed to be acquired unaccompanied by the names of the respective land owners.
Further, as per the publication only 1,750 sq.metres out of 1.502 hectares which the petitioner has, is proposed to be acquired, but it is no where indicated where exactly this portion falls. Turning to the newspaper publication, a plan is said to be kept in the office of the 3rd respondent, but inasmuch as it is not attached to the gazette publication there is no legal sanctity attached to this plan. There is no guarantee that the plan will not be changed while laying the road. The petitioner did manage to obtain a copy of the plan, but no measurements are given in it. Petitioner is not even sure if her bore-well and pump set would be affected. The notification in essence, does not satisfy the statutory requirement borne of an interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court in the case of Competent Authority Vs Barangore Jute Factory and others [(2005) 13 SCC 477].
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
d) On the aspect of granting opportunity to prefer objections under Sec.3-C to the notification issued under Sec.3-A of the Act, while the newspaper publication dated 15.02.2013 has provided 21 days from the date of the said publication, the Gazette notification under Sec.3-A(1) dated 07.01.2013, however, has provided that the same objection ought to be preferred within 21 days from the date the notification bears. The contradiction is apparent and the right to prefer objection faces serious uncertainty.
2. Neither the first respondent (Union of India), nor the third respondent (the Competent Authority) in who is vested the power of acquisition for the benefit of the National Highways Authority of India, have filed their counter. Only the 2nd respondent, NHAI has come up with its counter through its Project Director. In his affidavit he has averred:
● NH-45C has been upgraded and NHAI is entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining it. Be that as it may, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has declared its proposal to improve NH-45C to two lanes with paved shoulders and included the said project in NHDP Phase IV. The feasibility study of the proposed project was entrusted with M/s.Louis Berger Co., in joint venture with VAX Consultants. After objectively assessing the volume of traffic in the said road from 0.000 to 93.500 km, the consultants had proposed a four-lane road with paved shoulders. The Public and Private Partnership Appraisal Committee followed by the http://www.judis.nic.in Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved this project 6 respectively on 13.12.2011 and 01.03.2012. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways was constituted as the Competent Authority Vide a notification dated 24.05.2012. Subsequently, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Department of the first respondent came up with a Gazette notification in SO 69(E) dated 07-01-2013 under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, through which the Government has notified its intention to acquire a parcel of lands spread across four villages of Thanjavur District 1956. One of the villages covered by the said notification is Kanchanaickenthottam village, where the petitioner's property is situated. This was followed by a publication dated 15-02-2013 in 'The New Indian Express' and 'Dinathanthi', the former an English daily while the latter a vernacular daily. Both the Gazette notification and the newspaper publications informs that NH-45C is to be developed into a two-lane road with paved shoulders. ● So far as the petitioner's suggestion that the existing National Highways NH-45C from KM158/400 to KM165/000 (Thanjavur outer ring bye-pass road) might be widened instead of acquiring lands as proposed is concerned, the outer ring road now exists was originally formed by the State Highways Department, sometime in 1994. The said road is of poor geometry with many non-standard curves and if only the petitioner's suggestion were to be carried out, it would then require extensive land acquisition in a densely constructed area of Sundara Perumal Koil, Swamimalai, Papanasam, Rajagiri, Ayyampettai and Vayalur villages along http://www.judis.nic.in 7 which NH-45C runs. It is to avoid this, the consultants have given an opinion to provide an alternate bye-pass from km 129/200 to km 163/700 thereby extensive demolition of several buildings along the road margins in all the aforesaid villages could be avoided. Economically this is a better option as it will reduce the cost of the project considerably. The decision to acquire the lands has to be viewed in this background, and it is not arbitrarily done.
● So far as the allegation that the present project will affect the water body, a lake named 'Samuthram Eri', is concerned, the said water body lies between KM163/800 to KM64/800 on the existing NH-45C. At this spot where NH-45C cuts across this water body, there is already in existence 7m wide carriage way. As per the present proposal it is only intended to be widened by another 3m, and accordingly the existing bridge will be converted into a 10m wide bridge. This marginal widening of the road would not significantly affect the capacity of the tank. Besides to retain the original tank capacity, funds have been provided by NHAI through Public Works Department. The allegation that this would involve heavy expenditure and would lead to environmental degradation are exaggerated statements, that bears little relevance to truth.
● The proposed alignment has been finalised based on the detailed study conducted by technical experts who have made the proposal based on multiple factors, including technical, economical and social parameters. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 ● On the allegation that prior Environmental clearance has not been obtained, if at all it is required, it may become necessary for implementing the project and is not applicable for acquiring the land. The process of obtaining environmental clearance for implementing the project is underway.
● If the petitioner has a grievance that her agricultural activity would be seriously affected, and that the livelihood of agricultural labourers face a threat, she is free to project all her grievances in her response to the notification.
● The extent of the land required was physically measured and the land plan schedule has been prepared to facilitate land acquisition. Further providing a brief description of the property without naming the landowners is sufficient within the statutory scheme of National Highways Act.
● Every interested land owners was granted the right to register their objections to the proposed acquisition within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3C(1) of the Act. However, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity as she chose not to file her objections within 21 days.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Arguments:
3. Opening the arguments for the petitioner, her counsel contended that the present project does not involve widening of an existing NH, but involves the formation of a new National Highway between 100/000 and 165/000 km. Apart from the fact that the new stretch to be formed carries with it the potential to destroy the agriculture, what is contemplated cannot be sustained unless it conforms to statutory requirements, and proceeded to enumerate them as below:
● Primarily, the acquisition is attempted under Sec.3-A of the National Highways Act. However, before embarking to acquire a land for formation of a National Highway, the Government ought to declare the proposed stretch earmarked for acquisition as a National Highway within the meaning of Sec.2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. This is because under Sec.3-A, the power of acquisition is vested in the Central Government only if it is “satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of national highway, or part thereof...” Accordingly, for acquiring any land for any of the purposes envisaged in Sec. 3-A, there shall be first in existence a National Highway. And, the same cannot come into existence unless it is preceded by a declaration declaring a National Highway under Sec.2(2) of the Act. The significance of the same can be demonstrated by a study in contrast the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and that of the National Highways Act, 1956:
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 So far as the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, goes, under Sec.3, the State Government is vested with the power to declare by notification “..any road, way or land to be highway...” and if it is contrasted with Sec 3-A of the National Highways Act, the latter exhibits an apparent variance to the former in that while under Sec.3-A there must exists a National Highway before acquisition is proposed, in the former, any land can be acquired. Secondly, under Sec.2(2) of the National Highways Act, the Central Government is empowered to declare 'any other highway to be a national highway and on the publication of such notification, such highway shall be deemed to be specified in the Schedule”. Therefore, unlike Sec.3 of the State Highways Act, Central Government cannot notify a land as a Highway, but only an existing highway can be declared as a National Highway. This necessarily would mean that a highway should first come into existence, and before the same is declared as a national highway under Sec.2(2) of the Act, a highway should have necessarily come into existence under the State legislation. It is relevant to note that Sec. 3-A to 3-D (which can be equated to Sec.4,5,5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) were inserted Vide the statutory amendment in 1997, and prior to that there was no power of acquisition under the National Highways Act. Hence, it http://www.judis.nic.in 11 is all the more important that the National Highways are declared under Sec.2(2) of the Act first, and this should necessarily be preceded by formation of a road first. This can be done only under the State Highways Act.
● Every new National Highway requires an Environmental Clearance Vide notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 14-09-2006. This would require a public hearing to be heard by an official not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate along with a representative of the Pollution Control Board. (In the Notes of argument submitted by the petitioner after the oral submissions made before this Court, several pages were allotted to this point). Failure to obtain environmental clearance would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings and reliance was extensively placed on several passages in the judgement of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Mansukhbhai Kalyanbhai Chovatiya & Ors. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors. [2012 GLH (1) 271], Reliance was also placed on the authorities reported in N.D.Jayal Vs Union of India [(2004)9 SCC 363], Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 2715], Kinkri Devi & another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1988 HP 4]. As no public enquiry had taken place in terms of the notification, the very notification itself is bad in law.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 ● The notification dated 07-01-2013, now impugned in this petition is limited to NH 45-C, which implies that it cannot extend beyond anything now exists as NH 45-C. Inasmuch as the 32 km. stretch now sought to be acquired is not part of the existing NH45-C, and a new stretch is to be formed, the formation of which itself depends on the proposed acquisition, the notification cannot cover the same. Secondly, it does not name the petitioner/landowner by name, and it may not be adequate to identify the landowners. Thirdly, there is a marked variance in stating the purpose of acquisition in the notification issued under Sec.3A(1) and the substance of the notification published in the newspaper under Sec.3-A(3) of Act. While the former says it is four-laning of NH 45C, the latter states it is two- laning. Fourthly, in the Parliament Bulletin Part II, dated 06-03-2014, the intended stretch notified is stated to pass through Ariyalur District, whereas the petitioner's property is not there.
● The State Highway 8 is about 2 km. from the petitioner's property and the same could be widened. In this context, the Central Government which alone has been vested with the power of acquisition under Sec.3-A of the Act, has chosen not even to file its counter. The one who has filed the counter and contested the matter is the one who would acquire locus standi only when the road is vested in it by the Central Government under Sec.11 of the National Highways Act, for which it has to wait till at least the acquisition is completed. http://www.judis.nic.in 13
4. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, point by point, the learned counsel for the second respondent argued:
● A notification under Sec.3-A requires only a brief description of the property. The notification now impugned by the petitioner satisfies this criterion. In addition, it also makes a reference to the relevant plan as being made available for perusal of the land owner in terms of Competent Authority Vs Barangore Jute Factory and others [(2005) 13 SCC 477] and followed by the First Bench of this Court in General Manager and Project Director NHAI Vs Sridevi [(2006)5 CTC 564].
At any rate the petitioner had understood the essence of the notification and consequently she is no way prejudiced, even if it were to be presumed that the notification issued under Sec.3-A is incomplete as to some details. Reliance was to the ratio in M.Kumaresan Vs Union of India [2016(1)LW 316].
● So far as the petitioner's contention that a notification under Sec.3-A should be preceded by a declaration declaring a highway as a National Highway under Sec.2(2) goes, the argument stems from misconception. Sec.2 and Sec.3-A operate in different spheres and do not share a common plane of operation. While Sec.2 relates to declaring an existing highway as a National Highway, Sec.3-A specifically deals with the authority to acquire, not a National Highway, but land. This is made explicit in the statutory choice of the expressions employed, and when the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 same is read alongside the definition of land in Sec.3, as amended by the amendment in 1997. Reliance is placed to the ratio in Jayaraman Vs State of Tamilnadu [2014 4 MLJ 685] and approved in the case of B. Nambirajan Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari & Ors. [MANU/TN/1964/2018]. A plain interpretation of Sec.3-A of the Act reveals that the Central Government has been vested with the power to acquire lands, inter alia for building national highways, and this power shall not be curtailed by any artificial reading of an unrelated provision in Sec.3-A. ● The objection to the notification on the ground that it ignored the Environmental clearance required under Notification S.O.1533, dated 14-09-2006 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest is concerned, it is true that environmental clearance is required in terms of the said notification inter alia for projects involving 'new National highways and expansion of National Highways greater than 30 k.m. involving additional right of way greater than 20m involving land acquisition and passing through more than one State'. However, Vide notification in S.O.2559(E), dated 22-08-2013, an amendment was introduced which reads, 'Expansion of National Highways greater than 100 km involving additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40m on existing alignments and 60m on re-alignments or by-passes.' In terms of the amended notification, environmental clearance is required only if expansion contemplated is greater than 100 km, but in the instant case the new http://www.judis.nic.in 15 stretch to be formed is well within the 100km and hence no environmental clearance is required. At any rate it is required only at the point of implementing the project and not while acquiring the land.
5. Countering the argument on environmental clearance, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly as on the date of notification on 07-01-2013 environmental clearance is required, and subsequent amendment if any, cannot operate retrospectively and relieve the respondents of the need to obtain environmental clearance.
Discussion and Decision
6. Before delving on the core issues raised, a peripheral issue of secondary significance may be addressed straight away. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notification published in the Parliament Bulletin Part II, dated 06-03-2014, the intended stretch notified is stated to pass through Ariyalur District, whereas the petitioner's property is not there. However, the notification in S.O.69(E) dated 07-01-2013 which the petitioner has not disputed finds a place as Item 217 in the bulletin and it does not reconcile with the statement made on behalf of the petitioner but it states the contra. 7.1 Turning to the core issue, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in attempting to telescope the provisions of the State Highways Act, 2001 in the National Highways Act, though it appears to be imaginative and ingenious, on a closer scrutiny it appears outlandish. This argument, in the http://www.judis.nic.in 16 estimate of this Court, is spun around a misconception as to the true import of Sec.3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, which reads:
“3-A. Power to acquire land, etc. - (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land.
(2) & (3) ….” Sec. 3-A(1) merely lists the nature of the public purposes for which land may be acquired. The public purpose may be for building a national highway, maintaining a national highway, or managing and operating a national highway.
Building a national highway obviously will include formation of any new national highway. The fallacy of the argument that gets exposed here is that if a highway has already come up, and if it has also been declared a national highway under Sec.2(2) of the National Highways Act, what is the need for the Parliament to grant the power of acquisition for building a National Highway? Secondly, where the statute has not chosen to limit the meaning of the word/expression 'building a national highway', it is not permissible for the Court to limit its natural meaning either, unless there arises an absurdity in interpretation and ambiguity in understanding.
7.2 Before the advent of the National Highways Laws (Amendment)Act, 1997, (Central Act 16/1997) by which Sections 3-A to 3-J came into being [Note:
Sec.3-J has since been declared unconstitutional in T.Chakrapani & Others http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Vs. National Highways Authority of India [2011(1) CWC 763] it is not that lands could not be acquired for the formation of a new National Highway. And, nowhere it is statutorily provided that the acquisition of land for the formation of National Highways must be done under the Tamil Nadu State Highways Act, for the State Act itself has had its genesis only in 2001, a few years after Parliament has passed the National Highways Laws (Amendment)Act, 1997. Given the statutory setting, the provisions concerning land acquisition in Sec.3-A to 3-I of the National Highways Act is a code on land acquisition for the purposes stated in Sec.3A thereof, and its existence is independent of, and not inter-dependent with Sec.2(2). If Sec.2(2) of the National Highways Act has no role in understanding Sec.3-A, then the argument founded on the need to form a road under the State Highways Act, an enactment quite different from the National Highways Act, both in terms of source of statutory power and scheme, before invoking sec.3-A of the National Highways Act appears fallacious.
8.1 The next point canvassed was that (a) the notification has not named the landowners; (b) that there is confusion over whether the acquisition is required for formation of two-lane road or a four lane road; and (c) that the gazette notification and the paper publication publishing the substance of the notification bear different dates and consequently the dates for filing the objections to the proposal to acquire the lands within the meaning of Sec.3-C of the Act has become uncertain.
8.2 So far as the first of the objections is concerned, this Courts finds merit in http://www.judis.nic.in 18 the argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the statutory requirement is limited to giving the brief description of the land and not that of the land owners. Here, this court accepts the ratio in M. Kumaresan's case [2016(1)LW 316] which in turn has relied on the earlier judgements of this Court reported in (2007)1 MLJ 129 and (2010) 1 MLJ 901. Here it needs to be emphasised that the notification under Sec.3-A is preliminary in character and its objective is to put the landowners on notice in order they could file their objections, if any, under sec.3-C of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that she did not know about the proposed acquisition because her name did not figure in either in the notification or in the newspaper publications. 8.3 On the allegation that there is confusion or uncertainty in stating the purpose of the acquisition is concerned – whether the road proposed will be a two lane road or a four lane is concerned, what is now in challenge is a notification issued under Sec.3-A. In the Gazette notification in S.O.69(E) dated 07-01-2013, published in English, it states the purpose of the proposed acquisition is for 'building (widening/four laning etc.,) … of National Highway 45-C, the paper publication in the Tamil daily states in Tamil that it is for 'two way road'. Unless given to casuistic construction of the words employed, it is easily deducible that a two way road is not the same as two lane roads. This answers petitioner's perceived confusion about the purpose of acquisition. At any rate, if at all she has had one, it could have been raised as an objection in her response to Sec.3A notification but she, admittedly, has opted not to prefer one. http://www.judis.nic.in 19 8.4 Turning to the next ground, it is true that the Gazette notification is dated 07.01.2013, and the newspaper publication is dated 15.02.2013, and both have fixed the outer time limit for preferring objections to the intended acquisition as 21 days from the respective dates they bear, and necessarily they cannot be the same date. Here, the counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner has not preferred any objection that could be related to any of the two possible dates, depending on from which date the 21 days is reckoned. This allegation of the respondent is not denied by the petitioner. Now, if it were the case of the petitioner that she had preferred the objection in terms of the newspaper publication and that the same was not received by the authority concerned citing the closure date for receiving objections in terms of the Gazette publication, then there is a need for this court to step in to ensure that the petitioner is not denied her right of hearing under Sec.3-C. Today, how does it matter to her, when she has not filed any objections whatsoever? And, can a notification be challenged on this ground? Impossible.
9. The last aspect to be considered is on the need to obtain environmental clearance. After the notification in S.O.2559(E) dated 22-09-2013, there is no need to obtain environmental clearance since the expansion of the existing NH-45C is proposed only for about 35 km., as the same is required only if the expansion is proposed for more than 100 km. The point however, is whether the respondents should be pinned to the earlier notification in S.O.1533(E) dated 14-09-2006 since that was the notification in force when the notification under Sec.3-A of the National Highways Act was issued. The answer is an emphatic http://www.judis.nic.in 20 No. These are policy decisions of the Government evolved on multiple parameters guided by multi-various inputs. Broadly, a policy maker has the power to change the policy based on the experience gained from working of a policy of the time. Given the context, once the policy on environmental clearance is changed, a landowner has no right to insist that an earlier policy should be followed. To state it differently, while a landowner has a right to insist that he is not discriminated against in following the procedure requiring environmental clearance that is currently in force, yet the said right does not extend to the extent of insisting that an outdated policy be given an extended life. Accordingly, the right of the petitioner to question the proposed acquisition on grounds of want of environmental clearance in terms of Governmental policy disclosed in S.O.1533(E) dated 14-09-2006 is not available to him. Viewed thus, there is no merit in contending that environmental clearance as was required as per S.O.1533(E) dated 14-09-2006 should still be insisted upon, when the criteria/parameters are subsequently changed.
10. In the final analysis, this court does not find merit in any of the contentions and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.12.2018 ds Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No http://www.judis.nic.in 21 To:
1. The Secretary to Government of India Union of India Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways Department New Delhi.
2.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Incharge of NH.45C Vikravandi – Kumbakonam – Thanjavur Section Thanjavur District.
3.The Competent Authority viz. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways NH.45C Vikravandi – Kumbakonam – Thanjavur Section Tiruvarur.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22 N.SESHASAYEE,J., ds Pre-delivery Judgment in W.P.No.7681 of 2013 21.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in