S.Vijayakumar vs The District Collector on 16 December, 2009

[Cites 9, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

S.Vijayakumar vs The District Collector on 16 December, 2009

2.The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.10531 of 2008 are the residents of Ranjithapuram and Subramaniapuram and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3435 of 2009 is the resident of Ranjithapuram and they are having the lands south of NH-45 between TVS Toll-gate on the western and G.Corner on the East. Ranjithapuram and Subramaniapuram are residential areas. The NH-45 runs east-west in that area and there are three Churches. For the purpose of widening NH-45, by forming 4 lane/6 lane, road, works have been undertaken in Ranjithapuram and Subramaniapuram area, on the northern side of the NH-45 between TVS Toll-gate and G. Corner.

3.According to the petitioners, northern side of NH-45, between above two points, is a Government poromboke and encroached by various business people. There is no residential area on the northern side and according to the petitioners, the area available on the northern side is sufficient for providing 6 lane road. Initially section 26(2) notice under Central Act 13/2003 was issued for evicting the encroachers and some of the encroachers approached this court against the action taken by the National Highways Authorities and later, submitted before the court that they would themselves remove the encroachments within two weeks, failing which, the authorities can remove the same. Despite the undertaking given by them, they did not remove the encroachment and the authorities also did not take any steps, to evict them as the encroachers are all having higher political dealings. Initially, the authorities planned to have the alignment on the northern side of NH-45, taking into consideration that the northern side is a Government Poromboke and southern side is a residential colony, they started work as per the initially plan, by widening the side on the northern side. Later,owing to the pressure exerted by the encroachers, the authorities have re-aligned the road, by widening the road on the southern side also, by including S.No.19/4 in Ranjithapuram and Subramaniapuram area. As a result of that, the authorities have chosen to change the alignment and widening the NH-45 on the southern side of the road between TVS Toll-gate and G-Corner. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3949 and 4097 of 2008 forbearing the authorities from widening the road on the southern of NH-45 in S.No.19/4 instead of widening on the northern side. This court, by order, dated 24.04.2008, permitted the persons like the petitioners to submit their objections and direct the authorities to hear them and as per the direction of this court, the petitioners submitted their objections. Nevertheless, the respondents without properly appreciating the petitions, confirmed the earlier stand of widening the road on the southern side and passed the impugned order, dated 12.08.2008 and the order is challenged in the writ petition. In W.P.(MD)No.3435 of 2009, the petitioner challenged 3D notification published in the Government of India Gazette, dated 23.10.2008 and also published in the Daily Thanthi, Trichy edition, dated 24.11.2008.

4.The 3rd respondent filed a counter stating that the project implementation unit with its Head Quarters at Trichy is embarked with the task of implementation of the project of four laning of existing two lane of NH 45 from Ulundurpet-Trichy (Km 192/250-325/0). As a part of project, it has been desired to convert the additional 2 lane structures into 3 lane and 4 lane new structures into 6 lane structures in the stretch between Km 322/0 and Km 323/0 after taking into consideration of density of traffic owing to enormous increase of vehicular population and fatal accidents in the city limits of Trichy and also considering the vulnerability of the location and viability for the project. While preparing the detailed project report for this project, the project consultants have not desired any acquisition of land in the stretch between Km 322-Km 323 based on ground geometry, since it was considered that the existing land available for National Highways is suffice to lay four lane road, because the bypass to Trichy was constructed during 1959 by acquiring land from the private land owners and Government lands as well. According to the revenue records, an extent of 3.04 acres was acquired for the project comprising in S.F.No.19/1B of an extent of 0.88 acres, S.F.No.19/2B of an extent of 2.16 acres, totalling an extent of 3.04 acres in Kottapattu village of Trichy Taluk. Accordingly, the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Trichy, who was then in-charge of the maintenance of the road prior to the project implementation has noticed that there were encroachments in the RHS of NH 45. Hence, with the assistance of revenue/City Corporation Surveyors, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Trichy, has measured the land and demarcated the boundary of National Highways. As per the observations, of this Honourable court made in W.P.No.50249 of 2006, proper action was taken to demarcate the road of ROW of NH to ascertain, if any encroachment is found and established as per the notice dated 15.02.2007. Further, as per the direction of this court, a re-survey was conducted on 09.05.2007 with the revenue officials in the presence of R.O, Chennai PD, NHAI, Trichy, ADE, NH, under the direction of the District Collector and fixed the ROW in the RHS of NH 45 in that area. During the survey, it was found that the petitioners have encroached upon the area earmarked for NH 45 and accordingly, action was taken to evict the encroachers from the lands in Survey No.19/1B. The District Collector, Trichy has also issued notice to the parties, fixing the time and date for inspection, survey and marking of the National Highway right of way (ROW) and thereafter, directed the revenue officials to indicate such exercises as is required to evict them. Hence, action was initiated to evict the encroachment in the RHS of NH 45 between Km 322-Kms323. Accordingly, eviction was carried out on the RHS of the NH 45 in the location and taken possession of the Highway land and the project works are in progress.

5.It is further submitted that various writ petitions were filed before this court and directions were issued by this court in some of the writ petitions and the respondents scrupulously followed all the directions and after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioners and after considering the petitions of the petitioners, the impugned order was passed. According to the respondents, they have not left the encroachment in the poromboke land on the northern side and the boundaries of NH in the RHS was marked by the revenue officials, consisting of Assistant Director of Survey, along with the Inspector of Survey, Trichy and Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk Office, Srirangam, Trichy and they also measured the encroached area and surveyed the block Nos. 24 and 25, fixed the ROW and identified the encroachments. A sketch was prepared indicating the actual encroachment upon the NH and as per the sketch, encroachments were evicted and possession was taken over by the NHAI. The respondents also denied the allegations that the northern side, encroachers were not evicted and deliberately, the authorities are planning to widen the road on the southern side.

6.It is further submitted that the marking has been made in the LHS of NH 45 in the location of the lands actually required to be acquired for the widening the existing road in this location for 6 lane grade separator since the underpass at G-Corner for easy crossing of traffic bound for Ponmalai, needs certain improvements in the TVS toll-gate and also for providing service road and utility corridor drainage in the location. Necessary proposal has also been submitted to the NHAI Hqrs. New Delhi, for its approval and the notification under section 3A(1) was published in the Government of India Gazette about the intention of Government for acquiring the additional land in the LHS, i.e., southern side of the existing NH 45 (Kms 322- Km 323). Now the Government of India, by their Gazette notification under section 3A(1) of NH Act, 1956 published on 22.05.2008 made clear the intention of acquisition for public purpose. The encroachments in the RHS have been cleared.

7.It is further submitted by the respondents that the main plea of the petitioners was against the change in alignment of the project corridor already fixed by the Consultants and as the claim pertains to technical aspects, the SDRO/CA/LA has called for remarks of the PD, NHAI, Trichy and in response to that, the PD has informed that the alignment proposed by the Consultants are based on the ground geometry and not on availability of private or Government lands and the principle of laying NH road is based on the technical opinion offered by Project Consultants, who are backed by their superiors in the given field of knowledge, who are also competent to fix the alignment as per NH standard and offer their technical information in support of their stand. Thus, the technical information sought for by the SDRO/CA (LA), who is not being an expert in the technical aspect is valid by law. Further, the petitioners are not mainly against the processes/procedures of Acquisition of their lands, but in reality trying to misguide everybody to save their piece of lands from Land Acquisition by levelling false charges against the dignified project report and opinion of experts known for their reputation in the field of construction roads in NH standard. The SDRO analysed all the factors regarding realignment of road based on the plan with technical information and had considered view to disallow the objection of the petitioners. Adverting to the aforesaid proposition, he had processed the LA procedures and passed orders. Hence, the order passed by the SDRO/ CA(LA) is well within the powers vested in him and valid by law.

8.It is further submitted by the respondents that consequent to the change of policy of MoRT&H, all additional two lane bridges have to be converted into 3 lane bridges and new 4 lane grade separators into 6 lane grade separators and therefore, in between the Km 322/0 and Km 323/0, at the TVS toll-gate junction point, six lane garde separator have to be constructed as per the latest policy and there is a need for providing slip road also. Owing to the improvements incorporated in the locations and as per the alignment required, LA is necessitated and therefore, the authorities needed the lands available on the southern side also. The alignment and design of the road only based on the ground geometry, but not on the availability of land. The Government of India has issued instructions on 22.12.2003 that Land Acquired for ROW of a minimum of 60 mtr. is to be done for all projects under NHDP and where the work of 4/6 lane already completed or in progress and ROW is less then 60 mtr., land acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

9.It is therefore, submitted by the respondents that for the purpose of providing 60 mtr. right of way, the lands are also necessarily be acquired on the southern side and there is no mala-fide and it is not correct to state that the encroachment on the northern side were left purposely and the alignment was changed so as to evict the residential houses on the southern side.

10.It is further submitted that subsequent to the direction of this court made in W.P.3949 of 2008 and 4978 of 2008, the Competent Authority (LA) has conducted enquiries as required under section 3C(1) of the NH Act, 1956, so as to preserve the right of the individual over his property and adequate opportunity was given to represent his case soon on the publication of the public notice under Section 3C(2) of the NH Act 1956. The petitioners also participated in the enquiry and produced records, at the time of enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority(LA). After completing the process, the Competent Authority (LA) has submitted proposal for notifications under section 3D(1) of the Act and the notification has also been published in GOI No.1487 in S.F.No.2508 (E), dated 23.10.2008. Thereafter, the lands absolutely vest with Central Government free from all encumbrances. Now, the Special DRO/CA(LA) has also published the substance of notification in the dailies on 24.11.2008 inviting all the persons interested over the lands getting involved in the LA to appear before the CA (LA)on 10,11, & 12.12.2008 and for submitting their claims with records. Thus, the writ petition has been filed prematurely with an intention to forestall the proceedings of LA and progress of work in this location.

11.It is further submitted that in terms of the orders passed by this court in various writ petitions filed by the petitioners, action was initiated by the Highway Administration u/s 26(2) of the Control of NH (L & T) Act, 2002, and after observing the formalities all the encroachments in the location were evicted as narrated below as per the orders of PD/Highway Administration, Trichy, dt.12.12.2007.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

S.No. Name. Extent in Sq.M.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------

01.Mr.Syed Ali (M/S.Kareem Kutti) 279 02.M/s.Samy Auto Works 283

03.Mr.Nijamudeen & Dr.S. Fathima Bibi, Kings Hospital 228 04.Mr.Lurdhuraj 100 05.Mr.Shajahan 98 06.Mr.R.Sadhanandan 165 07.Mr.M.Govindarajan 102 08,.Mr.M.Munusamy 260 09.Mrs.Mahabunisha 140 10.Mr.D.Robert 161

11.M/s.Hotel Sangam 80.5

12.M/S.Shiva Auto-mobiles Pvt. Ltd.

36 13.Mr.S.K.Reddiar Bus 210

14.M/s.Ayyappa Seva Sangam Have no encroachment

15.M/s.Pasumpon Educational Trust as per fresh survey on

16.Mr. Narayana Konar 09.05.07

12.It is also submitted that all the encroachments were evicted and possession was taken by the NHAI in the location. It is also submitted that the NH Tribunal at Mumbai on hearing the case of Nizamudeen has also upheld the action taken by the Highway Administration/PD, NHAI, Trichy on merits as per its order, dtd. 22.1.2009 in Appeal No.1 of 2008.

13.The respondents further submitted that all the encroachers were evicted and there is no encroachment within the ROW between Km 322/0 and Km 323/0 in the stretch of G Corner-TVs toll gate section of NH45.

14.It is further made clear that but for the change of policy of Government of Government of India and the instructions of the MoRT&H issued on 22.12.2003 of the NHAI directing that the lands acquired for ROW should be a minimum of 60 m the land available in the location was found sufficient to lay 4 lane. In view of the changed policy 60 m width is essential for 4 lane project and according to the changed policy of the Government of India in MoRT&H letter dated 02.04.2007 at the TVs toll gate junction point, the existing four lane grade separator be converted and constructed into 6 lane grade separator and that necessitated the need for providing slip road as well as provisioning of service road, drainage facility and a vehicular underpass near "G" Corner besides utility service corridor for ensuing safe and smooth travel. Hence based on the existing centerline to meet the requirements for the improvements, additional land is inevitably required to be acquired in the LHS (Southern side )also. The respondents further submitted that considering the essentiality of land based on the LPS furnished, the Special DRO/CA(LA), Trichy has caused publication of notification u/s3A(1) in GOI No.691 in S.O.No.1188 (E) dt.22/05/2008 and published in the dailies on 12.06.2008 as required u/s.3C(1)of the NH Act, 1956 inviting objections from the land owners. 37 objections were filed before the Special DRO/CA(LA), Trichy, including the writ petitioners. The Special DRO/CA (LA), Trichy has directed the petitioners to appear for enquiry on 14.07.2008 and 15.07.2008 and finally on 11.08.2008. Based upon these objections, the Special DRO/CA(LA),Trichy has called for remarks of the 3rd respondent (PD,NHAI, Trichy). All the objections were disallowed, vide his proceedings dated 12.08.2008 u/S.3C(2)by relying upon the report of the 3rd respondent. After completing all processes, the CA(LA) has submitted proposal for notification u/s.3D(1) of the Act and the same has been published inGOI No.1487 as per S.O.No.2508(E) dated 23.10.2008. The substance was also published in the dailies on 24.11.2008 as required u/s.3G(3) of the Act. Thereafter the land absolutely vests with Government of India free from all encumbrances. The Special DRO/CA(LA), Trichy, has also invited all the persons interested over the lands getting involved in the LA to appear for submitting their claims before him on 10, 11 & 12/12/2008. But the petitioners have prematurely filed this WP before this Honourable court to thwart the proceedings of LA with a prayer to change of alignment by deviating the technical aspects. Therefore, it was contended by the respondents that the main objection of the petitioners have no basis and the writ petition is not maintainable.

15.The 4th respondent filed a separate counter stating that consequent on the Notification under sub-section (1) of 3A of National Highways Act, 1956, the Competent Authority/Special District Revenue Officer, has published the substance of the Notification in two local Newspapers namely one in English ("The HINDU") and another in Tamil in ("Daily Thanthi") on 12.06.2008, by inviting objections from any person interested in the land within the 21 days from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section(1) of section 3A object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub- section. On the publication of Notification, 36 persons have given objection petitions to the Competent Authority. Enquiry notices were sent to the objectors on 05.07.2008 by Registered post with Acknowledgement for enquiry on 14.07.2008 & 15.07.2008. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted on 14.07.2008 & 15.07.2008. The objections raised by the petitioners were related to Technical points. Hence, the objections were sent to Project Director, NHAI, Tiruchirappalli, for his remarks. After obtaining the remarks of the Project Director, the objections were disallowed as per section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in this office Rc.179/2008, dated 12.08.2008 and the copy of the orders have been sent to the petitioners by RPAD. Consequently, 3D(1)Notification was published in the GOI Gazette Notification No.1487 S.O.No.2508(E), dated 23.10.2008. The substance of 3D(1) Notification was also published in Two local dailies i.e., New Indian Express on 24.11.2008 and Daily Thanthi on 24.11.2008 and also supported the case of the 3rd respondent in other aspects.

16.Therefore, we will have to see - [1] whether the change of alignment on the southern side was done with the intention of avoiding the removal of encroachers on the northern side or due to the changed policy of the Government.

[2]Whether the petitioners can challenge the policy decision of the Government.

17.In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent that due to the change of policy of the Government, by converting the 2 lane structures into 3 lane and 4 lane new structures into 6 lane structures in the stretch between Km 322/0 and Km/323/0, there was a need for changing of alignment on the southern side. It is also made clear by the respondents that the encroachers on the northern side have been vacated and for the purpose of providing 60m right of way on the southern side, the alignment has been re-designed. It has been made clear in para 15 of the additional counter filed by the 3rd respondent that according to the changed policy of the Government of India in MoRT&H, letter dated 02.04.2007 that the the TVS Tollgate junction point, the existing four laning grade separator be converted and constructed into 6 lane grade separator. Consequent on the change in the major structural modification, the construction of 6 lane grade separator, the need for providing slip road as well as provisioning of service road, drainage facility and a vehicular underpass near "g" corner besides utility service corridor for ensuring safe and smooth travel in the junction point have become necessary since the four road junction point is meant for the traffic from and to Chennai and Trichy, Pudukottai, Madurai & Dindigul. The through traffic in NH 45, NH 45B and NH 210 are at present meeting and improvements required are incorporated in the present profile drawing and accordingly plan and design were prepared by the consultants and approved by the NHAI. When compared with existing DPR and present plan, the project new report also indicating concentric widening from Km 322/0-Km325/0. Hence based on the existing centreline to meet the requirements for the improvements, additional land is inevitably required to be acquired in the LHS (Southern Side) also. Hence,necessary LPS have been prepared and furnished to the Special DR/CA(LA) for acquiring the required land.

18.It is further submitted that the alignment and design of the NH road are fixed by the project consultants not on the availability of land but based on the stretch geometric. As the extension of road with all improvements have to carry out right from the 'G' Corner to TVS toll gate, any change of alignment as proposed by the petitioners, will actually affect the existing proposed 6 lane grade separator, which is not desirable at the midst of project works and inviting extravagant expenditure to Government of India besides abnormal delay, expose contractual problems also.

19.Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr.Dr.Rajagopal, that considering the essentiality of the land based on the LPS furnished, notification under section 3A(1), dated 22.05.2008 was published, inviting objections from the land owners and 37 objections were filed before the SDRO/CA (LA), Trichy and after hearing their objections and after calling for remarks of the Project Director of NHAI, Trichy, the objections were disallowed and notification under section 3D(1) of the Act was published on 23.10.2008. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no mala-fide on the part of the respondents in changing the alignment on the southern side and it is not as if the northern side lands were spared and deliberately, the authorities have acquired the lands on the southern side.

20.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further relied upon the judgment reported in 2007(6) MLJ 935 in the case of Krishnaveni and others vs. Union of India rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi and others and submitted that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21.Further, he relied upon the judgment of Justice, Mr.K.Chandru in W.P.No.11210 of 2006, in the case of S.Polappan and 5 another vs. The National Highways Authority, Rahmath Nagar (East), Tirunelveli-11, Represented by Project Officer & Deputy G.M.(Tech.) and 2 others, to substantiate his contention.

22.The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further relied upon the judgment of this court made in W.A.No.596 of 2008 wherein it has been observed as follows: "We have noticed that the order of the competent authority has been passed with a technical opinion obtained from the Project Director, viewed in relation to the technical details that IRC permitted viz., design speed of 100 kmph desirable and 80 kmph minimum for National Highways Standards, taking the minimum radius for horizontal curve as 300 metres for 100 kmph speed and 230 meters for 80 kmph speed etc., The Competent Authority has also observed the alignment that was suggested by the petitioner, if it was to be carried out would mean that the curve actually falling on the existing Colroom Bridge, which was not desirable and had portents of inviting extravagant expenditure to the Government. All the technical objections have been traverse in the order of the Competent Authority as well as the report which he relied upon and we are fully convinced that the technical details had been properly dealt with and it shall not be open to the High Court to supplant its own opinion in the place of expert's view.

We are alive to the situation that in the nation's transition from its erstwhile under development status to developing status, improvement of the infrastructure is a core item of national attention and it will be against the national interest to stall the projects only at the of the persons, who may be reluctant to part with their lands.

Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Mr.Dr.Rajagopal, that when the realignment was made on the basis of expert opinion and which was also necessitated by the change of policy by providing right of way, the same cannot be questioned by the petitioners.

23.On the other hand, Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the encroachers were not vacated and area available on northern side is sufficient for laying the NH as per the plan of the respondents and there is no need to disturb the residences on the southern side.

24.I have considered the rival submission of both the counsels.

25.In this case in the impugned order, objections of the petitioners were met and detailed reasons were stated for not accepting the objections of the petitioners. It is further stated in the counter filed by the respondents, as referred to above that the change of alignment was necessitated due to the change of policy of providing 6 lanes and to provide 60 m right of way and it was decided on the basis of the expert report and it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court and our Honourable High Court in W.A.No.596 of 2008, the finding of the expert bodies, in technical and scientific matters could not be interfered with by this court and in this case, no materials have been filed by the petitioners to show that there was mala-fide on behalf of the officials in changing the realignment. The main objection is that the encroachers on the northern side were not evicted and if those persons are evicted, there is no need for expansion on the southern side. This has been answered by the respondents stating that encroachers were evicted and even after evicting, they require southern side for private right of way and therefore, it cannot be stated that the authorities have acted in a mala-fide manner. In the impugned order itself, it has been specifically stated that the encroachments on the northern side were removed.

26.It is further stated that on the right side, there cannot be any expansion by providing 60 m and less then 60m right of way cannot be formed and therefore, the acquisition of the left side cannot be avoided. Therefore, it has been made clear that acquisition on the land on the southern side cannot be avoided and having regard to the reasons stated in the order and as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, and our High courts referred to above, this court cannot go into the technical aspects which necessitated the acquisition of lands.

27.Further, as held in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.11210 of 2006, the learned judge has observed as follows: "If authorities consider while marking expansion of the road, a particular alignment is necessary, the necessary consequence will be in achieving such alignment, certain lands of private owner is bound to be acquired. Further, the land owners are suitably compensated for the lands including superstructures if any and still if they feel that such compensation are not substantial, they can always approach the higher authorities provided under the Act for the enhancement of the compensation. The court by no stretch of imagination, in order to come to the rescue of the petitioners can order for change of alignment or make deviation from the plan conceived by "NHAI".

"In a matter of this magnitude, where the State has undertaken a mega project providing a Express Highway comprising of six lanes with a view to make infrastructure development to IT companies, public interest requires that such an activity should be allowed to process and cannot be stultified by the litigation indulged by the appellants, who have expressed their private interest in these appeals. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants fairly conceded that the power to acquire any land for public purpose is always available to the authorities and once the compensation is given, the power is complete and that is the correct legal position. In the present case, there is no deviation or violation of any procedure established by law and the appellants/writ petitioners cannot have any legal grievance."

Therefore, from the above judgment, it is made clear that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the realignment made by the officers. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to a passage in the judgment reported in (1980) 2 SCC 768 in the case of Dr.Jagadish Saran and Others v. Union of India "Judges should not rush in where specialists fear to tread..... To doubt is not enough to demolish."

28.In this case, in the remarks given by the 3rd respondent, Project Director to the the 4th respondent, dated 24.07.2008, various questions raised by the petitioners were answered convincingly and as stated supra, the main grievance of the petitioners is that without removing the encroachers on the northern side, the respondents are deliberately widening the road on the southern side. This was answered by the Project Director, in his report, dated 24.07.2008 and that was also made clear in the impugned order.

29.Further, it cannot be stated that opportunities were not given to the petitioners and the date and events would make it clear that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioners to place their grievances before the authorities and they were properly considered and appreciated. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the impugned order is bereft of details and the authorities have re-aligned the road only due to the change of the Government policy and that cannot be questioned.

30.In the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.3435 of 2009, the petitioner challenged 3D notification. Admittedly, 3A notification was published in the Government of India Gazette on 22.05.2008 and in the Daily Thanthi on 12.06.2008, the objections were received by the Special DRO/CA(LA), Trichy, from the petitioners on 17.06.2008. 3C(2) Enquiry notice was given on 05.07.2008 and 3C(2) enquiry was conducted by the 4th respondent on 14.07.2008 & 15.07.2008, technical remarks were called for on 16.07.2008 and the Project Director submitted his report on 24.07.2008 and on 12.08.2008, the 4th respondent passed an order and on 23.10.2008. 3D notification was published in the Government of India Gazette and on 24.11.2008 and it was published in the Thina Thanthi. Therefore, it is seen from the above details that sufficient opportunities were given and 3D notification was passed after complying with the statutory requirements. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment reported in (2007)7 MLJ page 1021 in the case of Shri Andal Alagar Kalyana Mandapam Private Ltd., vs. U.O.I wherein this court has held that without challenging the 3A(1) notification, the writ is not maintainable, when 3D(1) notification is challenged. In this case, admittedly, 3A(1) notification was not challenged and in this writ, the petitioner has challenged 3D(1) notification and hence, the writ is not maintainable.

31.Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the respondents, in both the writ petitions and hence, these writ petition are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court