A.R.Adil Basha vs The Project Director (A/C) on 21 October, 2011

[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.R.Adil Basha vs The Project Director (A/C) on 21 October, 2011

Bench: V.Dhanapalan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.10.2011

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN

Writ Petition Nos.18688 to 18694
and 18066 to 18074 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 (in each cases)

A.R.Adil Basha .. Petitioner in W.P.No.18688 of 2011

Vs.

1. The Project Director (A/C),
National Highways Authority of India,
(Ministry of Road Transport and Highways),
O/o The Project Director PIU,
No.10, Govindasamy Nagar,
Vazhudhareddy Post, Villupuram-605 401.

2. The Competent Authority/Special District
Revenue Officer (LA),
National Highways, Collectorate,
Villupuram. .. Respondents in W.P.No.18688 of 2011

Writ Petition No.18688 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the paper publication dated 3.12.2010 made in Tamil Newspaper "Dinamani" Chennai Edition, and the order made in NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-K'Giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011 by the first respondent and the order made in Na.Ka. A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-3, dated 20.7.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying Gingee bye-pass road in Tindivanam to Krishnagiri Section of NH-66 in pursuant to the notification dated 3.12.2010 made in Tamil Newspaper "Dinamani" Chennai Edition, by the first respondent in terms of alignment proposal-III through the petitioner's lands comprised in R.S.No.68/1A2 situated at Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupupram District.

For petitioners : Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For respondents : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for R-1
Ms.V.M.Velumani, Spl.G.P. for R-2

ORDER

In these batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the Notification issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the order passed under Section 3-C(2) of the said Act.

2. Since the pleadings of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, are common and the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, it is enough to discuss the facts of W.P.No.18688 of 2011, which will cover all the other Writ Petitions also.

3. The facts in W.P.No.18688 of 2011 are as follows:

(a) The petitioner is the owner of agricultural lands comprised in R.S.No.68/1A2 of an extent of 1000 Sq. Metre situated at Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. The first respondent in Tamil newspaper "Dinamani" dated 3.12.2010 "Chennai Edition" published a notification as if the lands owned by the petitioner and others are required by the Government for laying bye-pass road in Highways No.66, namely Tindivanam-Krishnagiri segment near Gingee Town.

(b) The survey and alignment of the en-route was entrusted to a private consultancy company, namely M/s.Mukesh Associates, whose interest is only in respect of making profit and would not care for public interest and the monetary loss caused to the affected persons. Originally, the survey was conducted and two alignment options, namely, Option-I and Option-II were proposed for laying Gingee bye-pass road. However, taking into consideration the expenditure, the District Collector has given Option-4 to avoid any bye-pass road being laid inside the Gingee town itself disturbing the residents of Gingee town. The object of laying bye-pass road is only to avoid congestion in the thickly populated and busiest portion in a particular town by passing of heavy vehicles and movement of heavy traffic.

(c) The acquisition authority and the contractor, for the reasons best known to them, rejected the objection of the District Collector and proposed Option-III which runs through the Gingee town itself, disturbing schools, agricultural lands, residential buildings and natural draining water sources to be let in Sankarabarani river which lies on the Eastern boundary of Gingee town and if the Green marked option-III road is implemented, there are possibilities of the entire Gingee town to be submerged during the rainy season and cause substantial monetary loss, life and inconvenience to the residents of Gingee town. The general public in Gingee town was kept in dark when all these options were debated by the contractor with the Revenue authorities. However, the then District Collector was bold enough to oppose the proposal Option-III and recommended only Option-IV through his report made in Rc.A/SDRO/LA.NH/45/2010-3 dated 31.8.2010, inspite of the report of the respondents and the consultancy service stick on to their own proposal for the reasons best known to them, in order to satisfy some of the big-wigs including the contractors.

(d) After knowing the publication, the petitioner made representation to the second respondent through his objection letter dated 16.12.2010 with a fond hope that he will consider the grievances expressed by him. However, the petitioner reliably understands that the second respondent merely forwarded the objection to the first respondent. Similar representations were made by all the 31 land owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired. Thereafter, the second respondent in his office proceedings Na.Ka.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-2, dated 25.5.2011 called upon the petitioner and others to submit their objections for acquisition and to attend for enquiry to be held on 2.6.2011 and on various other dates. The second respondent also enclosed an order made by the first respondent in his office proceedings NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-K'Giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011 sent to the second respondent.

(e) Mere perusal of the said order established the fact that the objections already filed by the petitioner and others, were rejected by the first respondent and a direction was issued to the second respondent not to deviate the present bye-pass road alignment and to take necessary action to give suitable compensation to the land owners and in the said order, it is stated that already Section 3-C(2) enquiry under the National Highways Act, was completed by the second respondent. The above order annexed along with the enquiry notice is nothing but a mockery of quasi-judicial process and opposed to all canons of quasi-judicial function by the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner and other land owners were forced to make an objection on 2.6.2011 and also an additional objection on the same day before the second respondent stating that he had no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry in view of the order dated 25.5.2011 passed by the first respondent who is the superior officer to the second respondent.

(f) On going through the objections, the second respondent, shouted against the petitioner and refused to conduct an enquiry and left to his office room. However, his subordinate, who claims to be a Land Acquisition Tahsildar, put some questions on the petitioner and his answers were recorded in a white paper and also obtained signature of the petitioner and abruptly directed the petitioner to leave the office, except this nothing happened on that date and no enquiry was conducted inspite of the demand made by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner and others have no other option except to leave the place. The second respondent adopted the same method in the enquiry held on different dates.

(g) Under the provisions of National Highways Act, the competent authority has to follow certain procedures, but both the respondents have not followed the same, which vitiates the entire notification itself, besides that, the first respondent has decided to the objections raised by the land owners on 25.5.2011 even before the enquiry dated 7.6.2011 and also furnished the copy of the same to the petitioner as well as the other individuals who are similarly placed. The second respondent in his office proceedings Na.Ka.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-3, dated 20.7.2011 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. The mere perusal of the order clearly indicates the fact that the competent authority has not considered any of the objections and jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner.

(h) The respondents without following the statutory procedures and provisions of the Act, hurriedly made an attempt to lay the bye-pass road at the instigation of the contractor. Therefore, at any moment, they may commence the work inside the Gingee town and if once the work commences, it will create chaos, and confusion, which leads to agitation by the general public.

(i) Therefore, for these reasons, the petitioner, having no other alternative remedy, except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing W.P.No.18688 of 2011 to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the paper publication dated 3.12.2010 made in Tamil Newspaper "Dinamani", Chennai edition and the order made in NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-K'Giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011 by the first respondent and the order made in Na.Ka.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-3, dated 20.7.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from laying Gingee by-pass road in Tindivanam to Krishnagiri Section of NH-66 pursuant to the notification dated 3.12.2010 made in Tamil newspaper "Dinamani", Chennai Edition by the first respondent in terms of alignment proposal-III through the petitioner's land comprised in R.S.No.68/1A2 situate at Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the following grounds:

4.1. The impugned paper notification dated 3.12.2010, the order dated 21.5.2011 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 20.7.2011 issued by the second respondent suffers from illegality, irregularity and in excess of jurisdiction.

4.2. The first respondent has not described the lesser extent of the land out of larger extent of proposed lands to be acquired, and it has not been properly described by giving the name of the owner, boundaries and measurements. Therefore, the owners of the land is not in a position to know which is the exact portion of the land that the respondents sought to acquire. Because of the vagueness and lack of material particulars, the notification itself is non-est in law in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory).

4.3. The alignment Option-III for proposed Gingee bye-pass is unworkable and it will take away the purpose for which a bye-pass road is proposed for Gingee town, since 1/4th of the Gingee town will be affected by laying the bye-pass road, which passes through the Gingee town itself.

4.4. The respondents have failed to take note of the fact that a duty is cast upon the acquiring authority who has delegated his power to private consultancy service, namely M/s.Mukesh & Associates to decide the alignment which will not take care of the hardship that has to be undergone by the general public, but on the other hand, the Collector is only interested in making big profit by doing lesser work.

4.5. The respondents 1 and 2 should have accepted the proposal made by the District Collector in his report dated 31.8.2010, since it will not cause hardship to the petitioner and the other land owners.

4.6. The first respondent erred in passing the order dated 21.5.2011, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and the other land owners and holding that the enquiry under the said Act was already done and a direction was given to the second respondent to ascertain the compensation which has made the proposed enquiry which was to be held on 2.6.2011 as fatal, meaningless, academic in nature and violative of principles of natural justice.

4.7. The respondents failed to note that the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, has not been followed, which will vitiate the entire notification itself.

4.8. The respondents have failed to take note of the fact that under law, it is well settled principle that where a statute requires a particular thing or act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done only in that manner and if there is any deviation of procedure as contemplated under the Act, it will vitiate the entire exercise of power.

4.9. The respondents have failed to note that in the notification, the land owner names have not been indicated and such a failure vitiates the entire proceedings.

4.10. The second respondent ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the said Act and failure to follow the same, vitiates the entire procedure.

4.11. The first respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 3-A(3) of the said Act and the publication was given only in the Tamil newspaper, Chennai Edition, and to his knowledge, publication has not been issued in English newspaper and the Tamil newspaper Dinamani is not largely circulated in the Gingee town.

4.12. The acquisition proceedings initiated by the first respondent is contrary to the project report wherein, Gingee bye-pass should start at 63/090 km and end with 71/260 km to the total length of 10.76 kms, but the same was reduced 4.77 kms. at the cost of great loss and prejudice to the petitioner and others.

4.13. The objections raised by the petitioner and others were simply rejected without assigning any reasons and the alignment options were not made by the Government Engineers, but only by an individual company.

4.14. The first respondent, in Clause 1.4.3 of the report held that across Sankarabarani river, a bridge should be constructed, but contradictory to the said stand, now rejected the plea of the Collector on the ground that the construction of the bridge to the length of 308 metres will cost substantial amount and thereby put the general public in hardship even without considering the objections submitted by the District Collector dated 31.8.2010.

4.15. The respondents are more particular and concerned about the cost of construction than the environment, which attitude of the respondents cause substantial loss, not only to the property, but also to the human life by inhaling carbon monoxide emanated from the passage of heavy vehicles inside the Gingee town.

4.16. The respondents have failed to note that if the alignment option-III is adopted, it will cause great inconvenience to the school going children, but these aspects were not even considered by any of the authority, and they are more concerned only about the money, but not the value for the human life.

4.17. The second respondent in the impugned order dated 20.7.2011 has not considered and discussed several objections raised by the petitioner and the consequences thereon, but simply rejected the objections holding that mistakes will be rectified and therefore, the order of rejection is not objective and reasonable.

4.18. The second respondent has not mentioned the objections raised by the petitioner in the tabular column contained in the impugned order, but mechanically stated as if the petitioner has raised only the market value of the lands and alternative way. The said approach of the second respondent vitiates the entire proceedings.

4.19. The second respondent has not conducted any enquiry on 2.6.2011 as mentioned in the order, but left the place abruptly instructing his subordinates to get the signature of the petitioner in a written statement, even without giving an opportunity to him to verify the same.

4.20. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is only suggestive in nature and the said suggestion will go to show that the objections raised by the petitioner are valid. Under the said circumstances, the second respondent has accepted the petitioner's plea of re-alignment.

4.21. The second respondent has not given any valid reason for not putting up the bridge across the river, except simply stating that there is no place to bend the bye-pass road without even supplying sufficient documentary evidence and the report of the technical persons to substantiate the same.

4.22. The second respondent ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioner independently, but simply rejected the same based on the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by the first respondent. The said approach of the second respondent has made the enquiry as an eye-wash and without application of mind.

4.23. In any event, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal, unsound and liable to be set aside by this Court.

5. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating as follows:

5.1. The writ petitions are neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same are liable to be dismissed in limine, as they are devoid of merits. National Highways Authority of India has taken up the project of improving NH-66 in the stretch from Tindivanam to Krishnagiri for rehabilitation and upgrading to 2 lane with paved shoulders configuration of the stretch with by-passes for built up area of the towns. The Project Implementation Unit, Villupuram has been entrusted with the task of implementing the above project. As a part of the project which aims to reduce congestion and to ensure free flow of the traffic at Gingee Town, a by-pass road has been proposed and the Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, 2nd respondent herein, has been appointed as Competent Authority for acquisition of private properties required for the formation of the by-pass. Initially, National Highways Authority of India proposed 4 laning of the Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri section from Km.38/150 214/00 of NH-66 and the proposed Gingee bypass was to start at Km 63/090 and end at Km 71/260 with a total length of 10.76 km. Subsequently, due to financial constraints, the proposed four lane was instructed to be restructured as 2 lane by the NHAI and the new alignments were proposed by the detailed project report consultants for Gingee bypass.

5.2. The detailed project report consultants proposed for a by-pass on the said 2 lane starting at Km.65.548 at Sakkarapuram and ends at Km.68.625 with a length of 4.77 km traversing through Sakkarapuram, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram Villages (which is claimed to be the Option III in the affidavit filed by the petitioner). Based on the representations made by the villagers including the petitioners, the District Collector, Villupuram on 30.1.2010 inspected the alignment proposed by the National Highways Authority of India as well as the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioners and sent a report dated 5.2.2010 to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. He suggested that instead of the alignment proposed by the NHAI, the by-pass can be laid starting from Nangilikondan Village, passing through Perumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram Villages and joining the National Highways skirting the Gingee Fort without touching the Gingee Town. By the said letter, he had requested the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu to address the NHAI for passing appropriate orders. Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member of Parliament has also requested the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, in this regard.

5.3. The Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi considered the request and held that the aforesaid suggestion is not feasible, vide his letter NHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010, dated 28.7.2010. The Union Minister rejected the alignments proposed on the ground that:

(1) The detailed survey of the alternative alignment could be completed only with the help of District Administration after a lot of resistance from the people due to large scale land acquisition and demolition of residential structures.

(2) The alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier, but also affecting more land, structures and farm wells.

(3) It requires construction of a major Bridge across Sakkarabarani River for 308 m.

(4) The longer stretch may also involve increased project cost due to dislocation of large number of structures and farm wells.

(5) The project appraisal committee has asked the executants to scale down the cost of the project, whereas, increase in length will automatically escalate the project cost.

5.4. The Special District Revenue Officer/competent Authority, Land Acquisition, Villupuram had initiated action for notification of the acquisition of the lands required for the said project under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. However, the District Collector, Villupuram again in his letter dated 31.8.2010 had requested the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 to address the NHAI for re-considering their decision regarding Gingee by-pass, since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is close to the town and it will not serve the purpose of avoiding congestion. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) No.2282 No.S.O.2701(E) of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 2.11.2010, notifying the Central Government's intention to acquire the lands in Krishnapuram, Sirukadambur and Sakkarapuram Villages, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District comprising an extent of 304579 Sq.m., which are required for the formation of the aforesaid by-pass road. The lands in S.Nos.106/2, 106/3, 106/4A & B and 107/5 measuring 3640 Sq.m. of Sirukadambur Village, Gingee Taluk owned by the petitioner were also included in the notification. The substance of this notification was published in local newspapers on 3.12.2010 in "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English) as per Section 3-A(3) of the Act. Pursuant to this newspaper publication, the petitioners sent an objection petition to the second respondent herein objecting to the laying of by-pass over the lands owned by them in Sirukadambur Village and requested the respondents to avoid proceeding further with the proposed Gingee by-pass road and to drop all further action in this matter.

5.5. The District Collector, Villupuram in his letter in Do.A./SDRO/LA/NH66/45/2010-5, dated 12.1.2011 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 suggested a slight modification to the alignment proposed by NHAI, wherein, it was suggested that the proposed by-pass may be laid along the Chetpet road prior to Sankarabarani River bridge and requested the Secretary to address the NHAI to consider the feasibility of the suggestion. The deviation recommended by the District Collector was inspected by the Chief General Manager, NHAI, Chennai and the detailed Project Report Consultant who had designed the by-pass. The D.P.R. Consultant had reported that this alignment cannot fulfill the engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such it is not feasible to change the alignment as recommended by the District Collector. Based on the observation, the Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in his letter NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-'K'giri/LA/2011/636, dated 24.5.2011 addressed to the District Collector, informing him that the change in alignment is not feasible. The Project Director, NHAI has also stated that the Chetpet road (Option IV in the affidavit) is running along the river bank and also suggested that the said alignment on the existing road is forming an acute-bend which is not feasible, since it does not provide proper curve as per design standards of NHAI. It is also not possible to construct a bridge across the river, since it is followed by an acute bend. Hence it was considered that the change in alignment to the by-pass is not feasible. The incidental to the publication of notification in Dailies, 31 land owners and interested persons filed their objection before the Special District Revenue Officer, Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), the second respondent herein. The second respondent had forwarded copies of all the 31 objection petitions received from the land owners to the Project Director, NHAI, the first respondent herein, through his letter No.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-12, dated 4.3.2011 and sought for technical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners.

5.6. The first respondent, vide his letter No.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011, offered his technical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners. The first respondent has replied to the objection petitions forwarded through the letter in No.A/SDRO/LA/NH/958/2010-12 dated 4.3.2011 that the present alignment was chosen only after detailed topographic and engineering surveys and after due consideration of the engineering requirements. The alternative alignment suggested by the petitioner for the formation of Gingee By-pass on NH-66 is found not to be technically feasible. The approved alignment is found to have the following merits:

(i) The by-pass will cut across the Sakkarapuram, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram covering to a shorter length of 4.77 kms.

(ii) In Sakkarapuram village, the by-pass will pass through vacant lands of Adilnagar and only one residential house may be affected at Adilnagar for the entire by-pass covered by 3 villages.

(iii) No buildings or structures in Krishnapuram and Sirukadambur villages gets affected due to the formation of the by-pass.

(iv) A detailed engineering study has been conducted on various alignment options before finalizing the present alignment. The alignment is finalised based on engineering requirements and ground geometry.

(v) Other alignment suggested by some of the land owners has also been studied by the consultant and such a possibility is not feasible.

(vi) Further, Gingee Town is surrounded by hills and reserve forests and almost all the available agricultural lands in nearby villages have been converted as house-site plots.

The detailed project report consultant has chosen the present alignment for Gingee by-pass considering all the above facts, avoiding the large scale demolishing superstructure, saving of agricultural lands/irrigation wells and irrigation tanks etc. at the maximum possible extent.

5.7. In the letter No.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/625, dated 21.5.2011, the Project Director has offered his technical opinion on the proposed alignment and the alignments suggested by the Collector. The Project Director has further stated that since the tender has been called and finalised for the project of Tindivanm to Krishnagiri Section of NH66 and the notification has been published under Section 3-A and the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) is being done, it is not possible to deviate the present by-pass alignment. The Project Director has requested the Special DRO to take necessary action to give suitable compensation to the land owners as per the provisions of Section 3G of National Highways Act, since most of the petitioners stated about the value of their lands. The competent authority conducted the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 2/7.6.2011. The writ petitioner participated in the enquiry and presented a petition before the second respondent stating that the Project Director has already rejected all his objections, the enquiry to be conducted is a mere fait accompli and hence wanted the Competent Authority to refrain from conducting any further enquiry. The second respondent therefore communicated to the first respondent the petitioner's objection dated 21.12.2010 calling for specific remarks on the issues raised by the petitioner.

5.8. The first respondent in his letter No.NHAI/PD/VPM/TDM-'K'giri/LA/2011/741, dated 27.6.2011 had offered his detailed remarks on each and every objection raised by the petitioner in his letter dated 21.12.2010. The competent authority and Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, after considering the objections filed by the petitioners and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the objectors, passed detailed orders as required under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A./SDRO/Land acquisition/National Highway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011. The petitioner seeks to mis-interpret an internal opinion offered by the first respondent to the second respondent as an order. The petitioners, with an ulterior motive to thwart the proceedings of land acquisition, has chosen to file this writ petition, permaturely before this Court, citing the opinion of the Project Director, PIU, Villupuram, the first respondent, offered to the second respondent as order.

5.9. The first respondent object the petitioners' allegation that the detailed project report consultant would not care for the public interest and their only interest is to make profit. Such allegations made against the detailed project report consultants are baseless and liable to be brushed aside, since the consultants are of high repute and having trained ability and gained experience in the preparation of detailed project report for the road infrastructure development, and they have balanced the interest of the Government as well as public benefits. The detailed project report has been prepared to address all engineering requirements by technically qualified persons and the petitioner who has no technical knowledge, has no expertise and competence to comment on the eminence of the detailed project report consultants. The by-pass to Gingee is planned to decongest the traffic in Gingee Town and is aimed to prevent the accidents at large. All the junction points and road crossings will be taken care of by providing proper intersections, caution boards, signage to avoid traffic congestions and accidents. The by-pass in fact reduces the traffic congestions in the Gingee town, since the vehicular traffic which passes through the Gingee town at present is at large will be diverted through the by-pass and only the local traffic shall be segregated to ply inside the town.

5.10. Further, it is the latest ruling of the Supreme Court of India that the NHAI alone has the expertise in road alignment matters and that the Courts must be circumspect in such matters. The Supreme Court in SLP.No.34320-34334 of 2009, dated 21.2.2011 held as follows:

"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of Highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements project relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matter, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala-fides. In other hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established, nor, the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."

Therefore, it is not bona-fide on the part of the petitioners to finding fault with the NHAI and the detailed project report consultants who are of vast knowledge and expertise in the field of construction development and maintenance of the National Highways.

5.11. The alignment and design of the National Highways are fixed by the Project Consultant not on the availability of land alone, but based on the stretch geometry. The by-pass is designed after duly taking into consideration the large scale demolition of settlement, amelioration of public infrastructure like school, business complexes, besides upkeeping and developing of natural draining water course, resources of the entire area abutting the proposed highway road and in the vicinity as a whole. The apprehension of the petitioners about the water-logging and inundation during rainy seasons has already been considered with the aid of the relevant data for the past several years and planning has also been made accordingly to mitigate the hardship in the event of floor or rain in this area. The detailed project report consultants found that the Option III is more feasible when compared to the option proposed by the District Collector (Option IV) both in technical and financial aspects. Further, the District Collector's option does not fulfil the engineering requirements of the NHAI standards. The suggested alignment on existing road is having an acute bend and it is not feasible to provide proper curve as per design standards of NHAI. The Chetpat road is running along the river bank and a bridge as suggested by the petitioners shall be followed by an acute bend which would lead to a large number of accidents.

5.12. The competent authority is merely an acquisitioning body which acquires the lands required for the formation of the by-pass. He has no technical expertise to answer the issues raised by the interested persons. The competent authority therefore forwarded the objections placed before him to the Project Director for his opinion on the issues raised in the objection petitions. The Special DRO who is competent authority to pass order under Section 3-C(2) of the Act has forwarded opinion of the first respondent along with the notice to attend the enquiry under Section 3-C(1) to the petitioners in the interest of giving sufficient opportunity to meet the ends of natural justice. The Special DRO has been authorised to act as competent authority to acquire the required land under the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Act by virtue of the powers conferred under the Act. The Project Director, NHAI is a requisitioning body, whereas the competent authority is acquisitioning authority. The opinion of the Project Director is neither a direction to the second respondent, nor an order to the competent authority as stated by the petitioners. The intention of the Project Director is only to speed up the process of land acquisition. The petitioners under misconception adduced the ground that as per the opinion of the Project Director that the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act had been completed, the fact remains that the opinion offered by the first respondent is only indicated that Section 3-C(2) enquiry is being done. The Project Director in the abovesaid letter has merely requested the competent authority to conduct the enquiry and dispose of the compensation. Such a request shall not be considered as an order or direction to the competent authority. Section 3-C(2) of the Act has authorised the competent authority to hear the objection and pass orders based on the objections of the land owners and other interested persons. The mere opinion of the Project Director in the letter dated 21.5.2011 shall not bar the jurisdiction of the competent authority to conduct enquiry and pass orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act.

5.13. The second respondent is a senior public servant and the petitioner shall not be allowed to misguide the Court with baseless set of facts defaming the repute of a Government official. The allegation levelled by the petitioner that the respondents have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act is unsubstantiated and baseless. The respondents have duly followed the procedures contemplated in the Act. The petitioner's intention is only to misconceive and mislead this Court with baseless set of facts. As stated above, the Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act has been notified in the Gazette of India and caused publication in the two local dailies, one in vernacular language on 3.12.2010. The petitioners were duly informed of the date of the enquiry to be conducted through the letter of the competent authority, dated 25.5.2011. The Notification is therefore procedurally valid by law and the petitioners cannot arbitrarily agitate that the Notification is vague and lacked material particulars and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioners, having participated in the enquiry on 2/7.6.2011 and seeking for further details on the objections already filed, has now been knocking the doors of this Court with the ulterior intention to delay the process of the land acquisition and thwart the proceedings of the competent authority and Special DRO, Villupuram.

5.14. The Writ Petitions are not maintainable, for the following grounds can be countenanced neither by law nor by facts:

(a) The opinion offered by the first respondent dated 21.5.2011 shall not be termed as an order and the Project Director has merely expressed his anxiety to speed up the process of the land acquisition and payment of compensation. The notification under Section 3-A enquiry notice issued on 25.5.2011 by the second respondent does not suffer from any procedural irregularity and is within its jurisdiction.

(b) The Central Government has notified their intention to acquire the lands and notified the brief description of private properties getting involved for the public purpose of building, management and operation of NH-66. The Notification has fulfilled the requirements under Section 3-A(1) and 3-A(2) and the format schedule prescribed by the Central Government which contains brief description of land including the name of the District, name of the Taluk, name of the Village, Survey Number of the land, type of land and nature of the land and its extent. Hence, there is no contravention in the publication of Notification as alleged by the petitioner.

(c) The alignment of by-pass of Gingee town has been fixed by the detailed project report consultant and affirmed by the NHAI after taking into consideration the various options and their pros and cons. The alignment proposed by the NHAI is planned to avoid irrigation tanks, forest areas, Gingee Fort (protected monument by Archaeological Survey of India) and habitations. The proposed by-pass alignment is not traversing through the Gingee Town as alleged by the petitioner, but is traversing through some of the agricultural lands and vacant lands and is planned in such a way not to affect the settlements in Gingee town.

(d) The detailed project report consultants are the technical experts who have been appointed by the NHAI for the preparation of detailed project report based on the feasibility studies and engineering requirements, ground geometry as well as various options. The project alignment has been suggested after taking into account all the vital factors such as cost to be incurred, convenience of the public, design standards of NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, etc. The above project has also been approved by the Public Private Participation Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) and Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure (CCI). It is not right on the part of the petitioners to make such highly offensive statements against the detailed project report consultant who are people of expertise and high repute.

(e) The alignment suggested by the District Collector has an acute bend and lies on the bank of the River Sankarabarani, which are not acceptable as per the design standards of the National Highways. Further, the NHAI is not concerned only with the hardships caused to the petitioners and since the project is a national importance and there is an obligation on the part of the respondents to take into consideration the hardships caused to the public at large, than that is caused to an individual.

(f) The respondents have taken adequate care of the infrastructure of the Gingee town and the welfare of its residents. Only after taking these factors into account that the respondents prepared the detailed project report. The proposed alignment has been designed without disturbing the schools, residential buildings, water courses and water resources. Adequate provisions have been made for the drainage facilities to forestall any possible inundations in the event of incessant rain/floods. The by-pass has been designed and alignment finalised to de-congest the traffic and ensure accident free, safe travel of the road users inside Gingee town as well as the project highway. The economic viability of the project has been evaluated by the Appraisal Committee of Cabinet, keeping in mind the benefits of the residents of the area and development of the infrastructure.

(g) The letter dated 21.5.2011 is not an order passed by the first respondent, but it is his opinion as against the objections raised by the petitioners, where the first respondent has intended to speed up the process of land acquisition and requested the second respondent to take necessary action for the payment of compensation. It was purely an internal communication among the respondents. The petitioner has misconceived this and has mislead the Court stating that the first respondent has held that the enquiry was already done, whereas what is stated in the letter is that the enquiry is being done. The second respondent, by his notice dated 25.5.2011 along with the opinion offered by the first respondent, has intimated the petitioner along with all 33 objectors to appear for enquiry on 2/7.6.2011. Hence, the enquiry conducted as under Section 3-C(1) is proper and meritorious.

(h) The respondents have complied with all the procedures contemplated under the National Highways Act with respect to the notification, publication and enquiry.

(i) There is no failure on the part of the respondents and all the procedures contemplated in the National Highways Act, 1956 have been followed scrupulously and proper opportunity offered by the competent authority to the petitioners and the petitioners availed of themselves the opportunity and appeared before him on the date of enquiry. However, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions before this Court at a premature stage, even before passing of any order by the competent authority and suppressing the said fact, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions to stall the proceedings of the land acquisition and to cause hindrance to the implementation of the project in Gingee town.

(j) The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act requires only the brief description of the land to be acquired in the schedule format prescribed by the Central Government and the scope of the Notification is to notify intention of the Government to acquire certain lands for the public purpose of building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highways. The format prescribed by the Central Government does not require the name of the owner of the land/interested persons to be published in publication under Section 3-A. However, the names of the owner of the land/interested persons shall only be published at the time of publication of declaration under Section 3-D. Thus, the Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act is valid by law and is in consonance with the National Highways Act, 1956.

(k) The second respondent has followed all the procedures contemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. The competent authority has notified the petitioners that the enquiry shall be held on 2/7.6.2011 and the petitioners have in fact appeared in person and he was given due opportunity of being heard.

(l) According to the mandatory requirement of Section 3-A(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority published the substance of Notification in two local newspapers "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English) on 3.12.2010 which are standard newspapers and having vast circulation throughout Tamil Nadu.

(m) The petitioner is misleading the Court with the alignment which was initially proposed in the year 2007 for the four laning of Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri Section of NH-66 and the proposed Gingee by-pass to the said four lane starts at Km 63/090 and ends at Km 71/260 with a total length of 10.76 Km. Subsequently, this was found to be non-viable and the four lane was restructured as two lane road due to lack of cost effectiveness and the new alignment which starts from 65/548 and ends at Km 68/625 with length of 4.77 km in NH-66 was proposed by the detailed project report consultants after conducting the feasibility studies afresh.

(n) The petitioners' contention is that the alignment options were not made by Government Engineers, but by the Consultants. The petitioner is ignorant of the fact that the Consultants are also appointed by NHAI for preparation of the detailed project report.

(o) The Bridge across the Sankarabarani river was proposed in Clause 1.4.3 of the report which was submitted for the by-pass which was proposed to be constructed on the proposed four lane. However, this four lane and the by-pass was found not to be viable and cost effective and hence, the proposal was dropped in December 2008 and was restructured as 2-lane. The 2-lane was proposed with a reduced cost. However, the public convenience was a vital factor which was taken into consideration and it is for this purpose the length of the by-pass was minimised to 4.77 km.

(p) The Project Consultant has taken into consideration the environmental impact assessment study and the clearance has been accorded by the Ministry of Environmental and Forest. The contention of the petitioner alleging air pollution owing to carbon monoxide emanated due to passing of heavy vehicles inside the Gingee town, has already been considered. After the formation of the by-pass, all except local traffic will be diverted through the by-pass. The local traffic will be segregated and allowed to ply inside the Gingee town. Hence, possibility of congestion of traffic and emitting air pollution caused by heavy vehicles passing through the by-pass shall be reduced to the maximum extent.

(q) While forming the by-pass, adequate care will be taken for the provisioning of safety arrangements. Markings, signages, zebra crossings and caution boards will be provided for the crossing of roads at all the junction points and road crossings and all intersections as per the guidelines specifications of Indian Road Congress (IRC) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H).

(r) The order has been passed by the second respondent after considering the objections made by the petitioners and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Further, the second respondent received the technical opinion from the first respondent and passed a detailed order where he discussed the several objections raised by the petitioners.

(s) All the objections filed by the petitioners were considered by the second respondent in detail and the petitioners were given ample opportunity of hearing. The tabular column contained in the order of the second respondent contains only the extract of vital objections raised by the objectors.

(t) The second respondent conducted the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 2.6.2011. After conducting such enquiry, the second respondent obtained the signature of the petitioners to acknowledge that they have participated in the enquiry. The petitioners have now come out with a newly concocted story as if the second respondent instructed his subordinates to get his signature in the written statement.

(u) The order passed by the second respondent is the order as contemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the National Highways Act, and it is not a suggestion as alleged by the petitioners. The second respondent has not accepted the plea of re-alignment given by the petitioners. The second respondent along with technical experts, however, inspected various re-alignments suggested by the objection petitioners and found them not to be technically feasible and hence, were rejected.

(v) The second respondent has clearly specified the reasons for the non-feasibility of the alignments and the supporting evidence for the reasons so specified are available in the office of the competent authority which is open for the perusal of the petitioners.

(w) The second respondent has considered the objections raised on the factual aspects independently. However, he is not a technical person in order to decide the technical objections raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the second respondent sought for the opinion of the Project Director, who is a technical expert in the matters of NHAI.

(x) The letter dated 21.5.2011 claimed to be the impugned order, is not in fact an order, but it is just an opinion of the Project Director as against the objections of the petitioners and other land owners forwarded by the competent authority. In fact, the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was conducted by the second respondent on 2.6.2011 at his office after serving notices on all the objection petitioners. The petitioners have also participated in the enquiry and recorded their statements and orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was passed by the second respondent on 20.7.2011. Hence, there is no cause of action for filing the writ petitions and the petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold, since they are vexatious writ petitions.

5.15. The second respondent has conducted enquiries on the objections raised by the petitioners together with 33/30 objections on 2/7.6.2011. After considering the objections filed by the petitioners and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the objectors, detailed orders were passed as required under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A/SDRO/Land acquisition/National Highway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011. The petitioners have approached the Court by suppressing the fact. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking remedy of this Court with an ulterior intention to stall the proceedings of the land acquisition by the competent authority. Further, the work has been awarded after observing all the formalities and entering into an agreement under the provisions of the National Highways Act, and the National Highways Authority of India Act. Hence, the allegation that the work has been commenced at the instigation of the Contractor is not sustainable. The second respondent has followed all the principles and procedures contemplated under Sections 3-A and 3-C of the National Highways Act.

5.16. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette of India No.2282 (Extraordinary) as per S.O.No.2701(E), dated 2.11.2010 and the substance of the Notification was published in two local newspapers, i.e. Dinamani and the New Indian Express, dated 3.12.2010 as required under Section 3-A(3) of the Act. The petitioner's contention that no Gazette publication was made except publication in Tamil newspaper is false and motivated. The petitioners have levelled this allegation with a view to save their own lands from the land acquisition for the project.

5.17. The by-pass to Gingee Town is a part of the project of two lane with paved shoulders configuration of the stretch from Tindivanam to Krishnagiri of NH-66 from Km.38/150 to Km.214/000 with a total length of 182.182 km., of which, the Gingee by-pass is only 4.77 km. length. Owing to pending of writ petitions, further work could not proceed and land acquisition process in respect of Gingee by-pass came to stand-still. This project of great national importance could not progress due to pending of the writ petitions in the Court and the financial loss cannot be recouped owing to contractual claims.

5.18. The petitioners' main intention to file these Writ Petitions before this Court is to drag on the proceedings and also to delay implementation of the project, for which there is no prima-facie case in the writ petitions. The main challenge of the petitioners is only against the opinion of the first respondent furnished to the second respondent for passing orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. Since no such orders have been passed by the Project Director, the writ petitions are infructuous and are liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

5.19. The competent authority, SDRO, Villupuram passed detailed orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act in Na.Ka.A/SDRO/Land acquisition/National Highway/958/2010-3 on 20.7.2011 after considering the objections filed by the petitioners along with the technical opinion of the Project Director and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the objectors. Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. It is therefore prayed that this Court may dismiss the writ petitions with costs.

6. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, stating as follows:

6.1. The writ petitions are premature and not maintainable in law and on facts. The acquisition proceedings are only at enquiry stage. This respondent has not yet passed any final orders on the objections filed by the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine.

6.2. The detailed project report is prepared based on the feasibility studies and engineering requirements, ground geometry as well as various options. The detailed project report consultant is the technical team appointed by the NHAI for studying all the above aspects and preparation of the detailed project report. The consultant is paid only a fee for the services rendered. The petitioners' observation that the DPR consultants are only interested in making profit, is baseless, derogatory and highly objectionable. The DPR consultant studies various aspects relating to the project, viz., the topography, number of vehicles plying on the road presently, the load imposed on the road, etc., and estimates the vehicle population which would be using the road in the next 20 years based on the study. He offers various options for improvement of the road. The NHAI which comprises of highly qualified engineers in the field, studies the alignments proposed by the Consultant and finalises the alignment best studied for the project. On the basis of the alignment finalised by the NHAI, the requirement of land is assessed and proposed to be acquired. The DPR consultant has nothing to do with the profitability or otherwise of the project. He is merely a technical consultant engaged by the NHAI for studying the technical aspects of the project and design the road. While so, the petitioners have levelled baseless allegations against the DPR consultant.

6.3. A section of the public in Gingee town have opposed the proposed alignment of the by-pass on the following grounds:

(a) A number of public utilities viz., BSNL Office, regulated market committee, government hospital, police station, taluk office and sub-Registrar Office are located near the place where the by-pass is now proposed to commence.

(b) Vehicles transporting paddy and other agricultural produce to the regulated market will be parked on the highway from the regulated market up to the traveller's bungalow.

(c) A large number of vehicles will be plying in the road for Melmalaiyanur Temple on Amavasyai and Thiruvannamalai Temple on Pournami days causing traffic jams.

(d) Since the proposed by-pass will be in close proximity to the town, there will be no room for expansion of the town.

6.4. Representatives of the public and prominent politicians have met and made representations to the District Collector, Villupuram. The District Collector visited Gingee town on 30.1.2010 with the Project Director, NHAI and other officials and inspected the alignment proposed by the NHAI and the alternative alignment suggested by the objection petitioners and sent a report to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, suggesting that as an alternative, the by-pass can be laid originating from Nangilikondan Village, pass through Perumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram villages and join the NH skirting the Gingee Fort, so that the alternative alignment will not touch Gingee town. He had requested the Secretary to Government to address the NHAI for passing appropriate orders. The alternative alignment suggested by the District Collector was also suggested by Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member of Parliament to the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. The Minister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, vide his letter NHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010 dated 28.7.2010 had rejected the above suggestion on the ground that:

(i) the alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier, but will also affect more land, structures and wells.

(ii) it requires major bridge across Sankaraparani river for 308m.

(iii) the project appraisal committee has asked to scale down the cost of the project, whereas the increase in length will automatically escalate the project cost.

6.5. The District Collector, Villupuram in his letter dated 31.8.2010 had addressed the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and requested to address NHAI to re-consider their decision regarding Gingee by-pass, since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is in close proximity of the town and it will not serve the purpose of avoiding congestion. Again in his letter Do.A/SDRO/LA/NH66/45/2010-5, dated 12.1.2011, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, District Collector, Villupuram suggested a slight modification to the alignment proposed by NHAI according to the representation received from the President, Town Panchayat, Gingee, wherein it was suggested that the proposed by-pass may be laid along the Chetpet road prior to Sankarabarani river bridge and requested to address the NHAI to consider the feasibility of the suggestion. The deviation suggested by the President, Town Panchayat, and recommended by the District Collector, was inspected by the Chief General Manager, NHAI, Chennai and the technical opinion of the DPR Consultant who had designed the by-pass also was called for by the NHAI. The DPR consultant had studied in detail the alignment as suggested by the local panchayat and recommended by the District Collector, Villupuram and reported that this alignment cannot fulfil the engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such, it is not feasible to change the alignment as recommended by the District Collector. The Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in his letter NHAI/PD/VPM/Tdm-'K'Giri/LA/2011/636, dated 24.5.2011, addressed to the District Collector, has stated that the change in alignment is not feasible. The Project Director, NHAI, has also stated that the Chetpet road indicated in Option IV in the affidavit is running along the river bank and the suggested alignment on existing road with acute bend is not feasible to provide proper curve and bridge etc., as per design standards of NHAI. Since the river is very nearer to road, curve will come inside the river which is technically not feasible. Hence, the change in alignment to the by-pass is not feasible.

6.6. The petitioners sent their objection petitions, dated 20.12.2010 to the second respondent. The second respondent had sent a copy of the objection petitions of the petitioners along with the objection petitions of 22 other petitioners to the first respondent who happens to be the requisitioning authority for acquisition of lands, for offering his technical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners. The technical opinion offered by the first respondent was served on the objection petitioners only in accordance with the principles of natural justice and they were requested to attend the hearing on 7.6.2011. The procedure followed by the second respondent is in accordance with law.

6.7. The petitioners are trying to mislead this Court by contending that the first respondent is the Superior Officer to the second respondent and that he had directed the second respondent not to deviate from the by-pass alignment. The petitioners know pretty well that the second respondent is the competent authority under the National Highways Act and that the competent authority is an independent officer. The second respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer belonging to the State Government and the first respondent hails from NHAI which is a Government of India undertaking. The first respondent is neither superior nor subordinate to the competent authority. The letter dated 21.5.2011 of the first respondent is only his technical opinion on the objections raised by the petitioners and not an order as misrepresented by the petitioners. The first respondent is not competent to pass any orders on the objections filed by the land owners. As the petitioners are entitled to object to the land acquisition, the Project Director who is the requisitioning body in this case, is also entitled to file his reply on the objections. To satisfy the principles of natural justice, the second respondent has communicated the copies of the objection petitions to the requisitioning authority and his replies on the objections to the petitioners. The petitioners are again trying to mislead this Court by contending that the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was already conducted by the second respondent. In fact, the enquiry under Section 3-C(2) of the Act was conducted by the second respondent on 7.6.2011 at his office after serving notices on all the objection petitioners. Orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act have not yet been passed. As such, the petitioners have not exhausted the remedy available to them from the administration.

6.8. The petitioners' contentions that the second respondent has refused to enquire the petitioners and shouted at them, are all unadulterated lies. The petitioners have committed perjury by lying in their sworn affidavits. The second respondent is a senior public servant. He has treated the petitioners with utmost courtesy and heard their objections with an open mind. The petitioners are persistently trying to mislead this Court by contending that the first respondent has decided on the objections in his letter dated 21.5.2011, whereas it is only a reply filed by the Project Director on the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners know pretty well about the proceedings, but misrepresent the facts with an intention to gain sympathy of this Court. The substance of the notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published in local newspapers on 3.12.2010. The Notification contains the details of the lands proposed to be acquired by the Government, and there is nothing vague in the Notification as contended by the petitioners.

6.9. The contentions raised in the grounds are untenable, unsustainable and contrary to law as per the well settled judicial pronouncements and hence denied.

6.10. The substance of the Notification under Section 3-A(1) published in the local newspapers "Dinamani" and "The New Indian Express" on 3.12.2010, the technical opinion furnished by the first respondent, vide his letter dated 21.5.2011 and the enquiry notice dated 25.5.2011, sent by the second respondent are all proper proceedings of the land acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. There is nothing illegal, irregular or excessiveness in the proceedings as contended by the petitioners.

6.11. The Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A is only a notification issued by the Government of India of their intention to acquire private properties for the public purpose of building, management or operation of a National Highway. Section 3-A(2) of the Act requires that the Notification shall give a brief description of land to be acquired. The Notification so issued is as per the provisions of the Act. The said Notification is proper and valid.

6.12. The alignment of Gingee by-pass was decided by the competent experts in the field of road formation and approved by the NHAI, which is the apex body for building, maintenance and operation of the National Highways. After studying various options and objections put forth by the objection petitioners, to avoid irrigation tanks, forest areas, Gingee Fort (protected monument by ASI) habitations, etc., the present alignment was finalised and approved. The proposed by-pass does not at all enter Gingee Town. No habitations in Gingee Town are affected by the present alignment.

6.13. The detailed project report is prepared based on feasibility studies and engineering requirements, ground geometry as well as various options. The DPR consultant is an expert in road formation. They have nothing to do with the profitability or otherwise of the project. He is paid only his fees for the technical services rendered by him. The allegations levelled by the petitioners against the DPR consultant are malicious and baseless. The second respondent is only the land acquisition officer and not a person technically qualified to design and execute a road project.

6.14. The suggestion made by the District Collector for re-alignment of the proposed Gingee by-pass was referred to the first respondent. The suggestion for deviation in the alignment as suggested by the local panchayat and recommended by the District Collector was studied in detail. It was found that this alignment cannot fulfil the engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such, it is not feasible to change the alignment as recommended by the District Collector.

6.15. The acquisition is for a public purpose with a view to develop the infrastructure and improve the economy of the region. The project is for the welfare of the public at large to cope with the day-by-day increase of vehicle population, ease the traffic congestion within Gingee town, industrial advancement and increase of tourist traffic. It is imperative that acquisition of private lands for any developmental activity is inevitable. No schools or habitations are involved in the proposed land acquisition. As regards the drainage requirements, suitable provisions will be made in the project for draining the rain water. The petitioner is presenting a horrendous picture by contending that the entire Gingee Town will be submerged in flood waters, which is utterly false.

6.16. The letter sent by the first respondent dated 21.5.2011 is only his reply on the objection petitions. It is not an order on the objections as contended by the petitioners. The second respondent alone is the competent authority to hold enquiry on the objections and pass an order under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. The objection petitioners including the petitioners herein were enquired by the second respondent on 7.6.2011 in accordance with law. The second respondent has so far not passed any orders under Section 3-C(2). The petitioners should have awaited the second respondent's order. On the other hand, they have rushed to the Court and filed these vexatious litigations only with an intention to stall the project.

6.17. The mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, has been scrupulously followed. There is no violation of any of the provisions which may vitiate the notification. In the notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act is only the brief particulars of lands to be acquired given in the Schedule as required by law. It is only a preliminary notification notifying the intention of the Government to acquire certain lands for the public purpose of building, management or operation of a National Highway. The land owners' name will not be indicated at this stage and there is no failure which may vitiate the proceedings. The second respondent has properly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 3-C(2) of the Act and conducted enquiry of the objection petitioners on 7.6.2011. There is no failure on the part of the second respondent.

6.18. According to Section 3-A(3) of the Act, the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in the vernacular language. The second respondent published substance of Section 3-A(1) Notification in local newspapers "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English) on 3.12.2010. It is a well known fact that both the papers are standard newspapers circulating throughout Tamil Nadu. The petitioners are persistently trying to mislead this Court by creating a picture as if the first respondent has something to do with the land acquisition. In fact, he has no role in the land acquisition. It is the competent authority who acquires the lands. Various options are explored before finalising an alignment. One of the options was the by-pass to the total length of 10.76 kms. This alignment was discarded as not viable. The NHAI has chosen the alignment which starts from Km.65/548 and ends at Km.68/625 of NH66. The total length of the by-pass is 4.77 km. Gingee town is surrounded by two ancient and historic forts under the maintenance of the ASI, Forest lands, Sankarabarani river and various irrigation and other water bodies. After studying various options for the by-pass, considering the forest lands, irrigation tanks, structures getting affected, Gingee Fort etc., this alignment was approved. There is no prejudice to the petitioners as alleged. The owners of the private property under acquisition will be paid appropriate compensation.

6.19. The contention of the petitioners that their objections were simply rejected is false and misleading. The second respondent has so far not passed any orders under Section 3-C(2) on the objections. The deviation in alignment suggested by the local Panchayat and recommended by the District Collector, dated 31.8.2010 was studied by technical experts. The Chetpet road through which the deviation is suggested, runs along the Sankarabarani river bank. On the other side of the road, is hillock. There is no room for expanding the road to the width of 60 metres. The suggested alignment on existing road will result in an acute bend. The proposed bridge across the river cannot be provided with proper gradient because of the acute turn, as per the design standards of NHAI. It was further observed that since the river is very near to the road, the curve will come inside the river, which is technically not feasible. Hence, the change of alignment as recommended by the District Collector was not accepted.

6.20. Taking into account the environmental impact, the assessment study and after proper analysis, the Ministry of Forest and Environment, has given clearance for the project. The contention of the petitioners that the loss to property and human life by inhaling carbon monoxide emanated from the passage of the heavy vehicles inside the Gingee Town, is exaggerated by the petitioners beyond truth. In fact, after formation of the by-pass, there will be no traffic of heavy vehicles within Gingee Town. The construction of the by-pass is a facility provided for road users and aimed to ensure accident free, time saving, safe travel. All the junction pints and road crossings will be taken care of by providing proper intersections, caution boards, marking, signals, etc., to avoid accidents and to alert road users. Appropriate safety arrangements as per IRC and MORT & H guidelines will be made in this stretch. No orders have so far been passed by the second respondent. The petitioners are challenging an imaginary order and there is no cause of action at all for these vexatious writ petitions.

6.21. The first respondent offered his technical opinion that the alignment suggested by the petitioners is not technically feasible for NHAI project and acquisition of lands of the petitioners which all in the alignment chosen by the DPR consultant is inevitable. Considering all these aspects, the second respondent passed orders under Section 3-C(2) of the Act on 20.7.2011 rejecting the petitions filed by the petitioners.

6.22. The second respondent has conducted enquiry of the objection petitioners on 2.6.2011/7.6.2011 and recorded the statements from the persons who attended the enquiry on that date. The petitioners were also heard. Even then, the petitioners have stated that the second respondent has not conducted enquiry, which is a falsehood. The second respondent in his order, stated only the objections given by the petitioners in their petition in detail and after considering the technical opinion furnished by the first respondent, based on the reports of the technical experts, the second respondent rejected the objections filed by the petitioners as the change in alignment of the by-pass is not technically feasible.

6.23. The second respondent personally conducted the enquiry on 2.6.2011 and the petitioners had also presented the objection petition before the second respondent on 2.6.2011 and the petitioners herein had also presented the objection petition before the second respondent on 2.6.2011 and it was received by the second respondent. The order under Section 3-C(2) passed by the second respondent is a speaking order, discussing both the objections raised by the petitioners and the reply received from the first respondent, as to why it is not possible to deviate the present by-pass alignment and after studying all the merits and demerits of the case, the order was passed appropriately by the second respondent, rejecting the objection petitions filed by the petitioners. The second respondent has not accepted the petitioners' plea of re-alignment. The petitioners are mis-representing the order passed by the second respondent. The Chetpet road is running along the river bank and suggested alignment on existing road with acute bend, is not technically feasible to provide proper curve and bridge, etc., as per design standards of NHAI. These points were clearly explained in the orders passed by the second respondent. The orders were passed by the second respondent with utmost care and application of mind.

6.24. The land acquisition is only in the initial stage. Work on the project can be commenced only after finalisation of the land acquisition process. Any injunction passed by this Court will adversely affect the project, which has been taken up for implementation in the larger interest of the general public.

6.25. The Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette of India No.2282 (Extraordinary) S.O.No.2701(E), dated 2.11.2010 and the substance of the Notification was published in two local newspapers "Dinamani" (Tamil) and "The New Indian Express" (English), dated 3.12.2010. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that no publication was made except publication in Tamil newspaper, is false. The petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for by them. The writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

7. Mr.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, in his foremost submission contended that there is no proper description of the extent of lands out of larger extent of proposed lands to be acquired by giving the names of the owners, bondaries and measurements. Therefore, the land owners are not in a position to know as to which are the exact portion of the lands, which are sought to be acquired. There is vagueness and lack of material particulars in the Notification itself, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated in law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the competent authority failed to take note of the fact that a duty is cast upon the acquiring authority in the acquisition proceedings to follow the procedures, but he has delegated his power to private consultancy service to decide the alignment, which agency has no knowledge about the hardship of the general public whose lands are sought to be acquired. Therefore, the District Collector, who is the authority who knows the hardship, has made a survey and sent the proposal and that proposal has to be taken note of. On the contrary, the respondents acted against the proposal and proceeded to acquire the lands.

9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioners independently, but he simply rejected the same based on the order passed by the first respondent, and therefore, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others), wherein, the Apex Court held as follows:

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose,J in Gorhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p.18):

"Public orders publicy made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

11. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent-NHAI, in his submissions, contended that the National Highways Authority of India (for short, 'NHAI') has taken up the project of improving NH66 in the stretch between Tindivanam and Krishnagiri for rehabilitation and upgrading of two-lane, with paved shoulders configuration of stretch with by-passes for built-up area of the towns and requested the competent authority for acquisition of the private lands for formation of by-pass for larger public interest, after taking into account the technical feasibility report for the alignment of the proposed project. After detailed project study, the consultancy has been suggested, taking into account the vital factors such as cost to be incurred, convenience of the public, design standards of NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, etc., and the same have been approved by the Public Private Participation Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) and the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure (CCI), and therefore, it is not right on the part of the petitioners to make such a statement against the detailed project report consultants who are people of expertise and high repute.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the objections made by the petitioners, have been duly considered, after the roving enquiry, after giving them an opportunity of hearing and the enquiry was conducted under Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot assail the Notification on the ground that there is no proper description of the lands.

13. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent relied on the following decisions:

(a) 1996 (8) SCC 18 (Sam Hiring Co. Vs. A.R.Bhujbal):

"6.The Land Acquisition Officer is not a judicial authority or a quasi-judicial authority. He exercised the power under Section 5-A, as an administrative authority. But the Act requires that he should consider the objections and, if asked, to give an opportunity of hearing. In this case, opportunity of hearing was given and the objections raised were considered. The principle of natural justice has been complied with. He was not required to elaborately deal with each of the objections and submit the report. Considered from this perspective, we do not think that there is any error of law warranting interference."

(b) 1997 (1) SCC 134 (Ramniklal N.Bhutta Vs. State of Maharashtra):

"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226--indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."

"25. Concededly, Section 28(3) of the Act gives a right of personal hearing to the owner of the land or any other interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants' case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however, is a question of fact and we notice from a perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under Section 28(3) had been followed, that the final notification had been issued. We find that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to reassure ourselves as to the correctness of the High Court's decision."

"27. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the request for a personal hearing was conditional, in that if a clarification or additional documents were required, time for that purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch as the fact that there was no need for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the access road or that alternative land was available for that purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for Bangalore Airport. We are also not unmindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra ( 1997 (1) SCC 134 ), wherein it has been held as under: (SCC p.140, para 10) "10. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226--indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."

(d) JT 2011 (8) SC 160 = 2011 (7) SCALE 654 (Union of India Vs. Dr.Kushala Shetty and others):

"19. In this case, notification dated 10.8.2005, which was published in the official Gazette of the same date and of which substance was published in two local newspapers, contained full description of the land proposed to be acquired for widening three National Highways. The names of the villages in which the land proposed to be acquired was situated, the survey numbers including sub-survey numbers, the nature, type and area of the land were also given in the schedule appended to the notification. Not only this, it was clearly mentioned that land plans and other details of the land are available in the office of the Competent Authority. This is the reason why none of the land owners (including the respondents) made any grievance that the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due to lack of particulars/details, they were prevented from effectively exercising their right to file objections in terms of Section 3C(1). Of course, a grievance of this score was made in the objections dated 16.10.2006 filed by some of the land owners of Padavu Village, but that was clearly an afterthought and, in any case, the same did not require consideration because of non-adherence to the time schedule specified in Section 3C(1) of the 1956 Act.

20. The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court for upsetting the well considered order passed by the learned single Judge negating the respondents' challenge to the acquisition was that declaration under Section 3D(1) was published even before communication of the decision taken by the Competent Authority in terms of Section 3C(2). The process of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for recording its conclusion appears to have been influenced by an assumption that the objections filed by the land owners had not been decided till the issue of declaration under Section 3D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that the competent Authority had, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors, passed order dated 11.10.2005 and rejected the objections. Though, that order was not crafted like a judicial order which is passed by a legally trained mind, the rejection of the representations made by the respondents cannot be faulted only on that ground. The Competent Authority did advert to the substance of objections, the details of which have been incorporated in Annexure P-3 filed before this Court. The concerned officer rejected the same by observing that the land proposed for acquisition is necessary for widening the existing National Highways into four lanes. If the consideration made by the Competent Authority is judged in the backdrop of the fact that a Special Purpose Vehicle was incorporated with the name New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited for implementation of the project known as New Mangalore Port Road Connectivity Project from Surathkal to Nantoor and B.C.Road to Padil along with bypass from Nantoor to Padil, it is not possible to castigate the proved reasons recorded by the Competent Authority for rejecting the objections."

"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprise of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act had been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."

(e) 2007 (6) MLJ 935 (Krishnaveni Vs. U.O.I) (Madras High Court):

"23. The petitioners sought to challenge the veracity and correctness of the detailed finalized plan of National Highways Authority of India, in my view, the said submission is devoid of merits. The findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by this Court in exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution, followed Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 4 SCC 162 wherein in para-59, it was held thus:

"59. The appellant sought to challenge the veracity and correctness of the figures given in the report of the Central Government as well as in the quinquennial census. In our view, this submission is devoid of merit. It is now well settled by various decisions of this Court that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts in exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution or by this Court under Article 136 or 32 of the Constitution...."

(f) 2006 (5) CTC 634 (The General Manager (Tech.) and Project Director Vs. Sridevi (Mrs.) (Division Bench of Madras High Court):

"8. The notification specifically mentions that the plants and the other details of the lands covered under the notification would be available and could be inspected by the interested persons in the office of the competent authority. Thus, the aggrieved land-owners had an opportunity to inspect the land plans and the other details and it is not permissible for them to make any grievance about the description of the land. In fact, the Supreme Court decision, cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, supports the case of the respondents rather the petitioners."

(g) W.P.No.18790 of 2010, order dated 17.8.2010 (Division Bench of Madras High Court) (G.Loganathan Vs. The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Official (LA), National Highways, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District and others) :

"4. Taking into consideration this fact and also having regard to the fact that the National Highways Authority of India has the expertise to see as to which alignment is feasible and would best suit the requirements. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot go into all these questions. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 are closed."

(h) W.P.No.1919 of 2009, order dated 29.7.2009 (Madras High Court)(T.Vasantha Vs. The Government of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and National Highways, New Delhi and others):

"24. Though the above said judgment is rendered under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the ratio laid down there is applicable to the facts of these cases, i.e., where the property under acquisition has been vested in the respondent department, the High Court should not interfere with the acquisition and quash either Section 4-1 Notification or Section 6 Declaration. As far as the case in hand is concerned, here also, the award has been passed and possession has been taken. Under such circumstances, as per the above said judgment, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage, this Court cannot even interfere with the acquisition proceedings."

(i) 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory):

"7. .... The impugned notification is by the Central Government. NHAI is established under a Central Act. The competent authority under Section 3 of the Act is appointed by the Central Government. Therefore, this State Government plan of 1996 (the impugned notification is of 1998) is of no assistance. The impugned judgment of the High Court emphasises the need for a plan. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that no plan was produced before it. The absence of any reference to plan in the impugned notification and in fact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies the argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the impugned notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders the notification invalid.

8. The absence of a plan also renders the right to file objections under Section 3-C(1), nugatory. In the absence of a plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part of the acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Without this knowledge no objections regarding use of land could be filed. Since the objection regarding use of the land had been given up by the writ petitioners, we need not go any further in this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for NHAI that failure to file objections disentitles the writ petitioners to object to the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban (1999 (7) SCC 44). In our view, this judment has no application in the facts of the present case where the right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5-A. Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to be decided independently of the right to file objections. Dehors the right to file objection, the validity of the notification has to be considered. Failure to file objection to the notification under Section 3-C, therefore, cannot non-suit the writ petitioners in this case."

14. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the competent authority, the second respondent herein, in her submissions, strenuously contended that for a public project, based on a detailed project report, the competent authority made the Notification for acquisition of the lands on the basis of the alignment furnished by the NHAI, after the requirement of the lands is assessed and proposed to be acquired, with complete description of the lands, and there is no defect in the impugned Notification made under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The second respondent being an officer belonging to the State Government, independently assessed the lands sought to be acquired and proceeded by a clear description of the extent of the proposed lands sought to be acquired, with boundaries, measurements and the names of the land owners. She further submitted that the objection of the petitioners, was considered by the competent authority independently with clear application of mind, taking into consideration the public purpose of the project and the requirement of the first respondent for National Highways and accordingly, the second respondent decided the objections by taking into account each and every grievance of the petitioners. There is no infirmity in the action as well as the proceedings of the competent authority.

15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and given thoughtful consideration to their submissions.

16. The National Highways Authority of India (for short, 'NHAI'), a body under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union of India, has taken the project of improving NH66 in between the stretch from Tindivanam to Krishnagiri, for which, Project Implementation Unit having a Unit at Villupuram, has been entrusted with the task of implementing the above project, which aims to reduce congestion and ensure free flow of traffic at Gingee Town and by-pass road has been proposed and the Special District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, the second respondent herein has been appointed as competent authority for acquisition of the private lands required for formation of by-pass. The proposed four-lane of Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnagiri Section from Km.38/150 to Km.214/000 of NH66 and the proposed Gingee by-pass was to start at Km.63/090 and end at Km.71/260 with total length of 10.76 kms. Subsequently, due to financial constraints, the proposed four lane was instructed to be restructured as two lane and the new alignments were proposed by the detailed project report consultants for Gingee by-pass, starting at Km.65.548 at Sakkarapuram and ending at Km.68.625, with a length of 4.77 kms traversing through Sakkarapuram, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram Villages. The Special District Revenue Officer has been authorised to act as competent authority to acquire the required lands under the provisions of the National Highways Act, by virtue of the powers conferred under the said Act and he proceeded to acquire the lands by issuing the Notification under Section 3-A of the Act. The Project Director, NHAI, who is the requisitioning body, has to monitor the process of land acquisition by speeding up the project work.

17. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued the Notification on 2.11.2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) (for short, 'the Act'), and the Central Government, after being satisfied that for the public purpose, the land, the brief description of which was given in the Schedule therein, is required for building (widening/four laning, etc.,), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.66 on the stretch of land from KM.40.000 to KM.85.600 (Tindivanam-Krishnagiri Section) in District Villupuram in the State of Tamil Nadu, declared its intention to acquire such land and also notified that the persons interested in the said land, may, within 21 days from the date of publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of such land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C of the Act. It is further notified that every such objection shall be made to the competent authority, namely the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Villupuram, in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections and that any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) of Section 3-C of the Act, shall be final. The land plans and other details of land covered under the said Notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the office of the competent authority. In the Schedule to the said Notification, the brief description of the lands in question sought to be acquired, with or without structure, falling within the stretch of land from Km.40/000 to Km.85/600 (Tindivanam-Krishnagiri Section) of NH66 in the State of Tamil Nadu, has been fairly published.

18. Pursuant to the above Notification, a section of public in Gingee Town, have opposed the proposed alignment of by-pass on the following grounds:

(a) A number of public utilities, viz., BSNL Office, regulated market committee, government hospital, police station, taluk office and sub-Registrar Office are located near the place where the by-pass is now proposed to commence.

(b) Vehicles transporting paddy and other agricultural produce to the regulated market will be parked on the highway from the regulated market up to the traveller's bungalow.

(c) A large number of vehicles will be plying in the road for Melmalaiyanur Temple on Amavasyai and Thiruvannamalai Temple on Pournami days causing traffic jams.

(d) Since the proposed by-pass will be in close proximity to the town, there will be no room for expansion of the town.

19. The representatives of the public and prominent politicians have met and made representations to the District Collector, Villupuram. The District Collector visited Gingee town on 30.1.2010 with the Project Director, NHAI and other officials and inspected the alignment proposed by the NHAI and the alternative alignment suggested by the objection petitioners and sent a report to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, suggesting that as an alternative, the by-pass can be laid originating from Nangilikondan Village, pass through Perumbugai, Melkalavoy, Sirukadambur and Krishnapuram villages and join the NH skirting the Gingee Fort, so that the alternative alignment will not touch Gingee town. He had requested the Secretary to Government to address the NHAI for passing appropriate orders. The alternative alignment suggested by the District Collector was also suggested by Thiru.M.Krishnaswamy, Member of Parliament, to the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, for which, the Minister, vide his letter NHAI/TECH/TN/VIP/2010 dated 28.7.2010 had rejected the above suggestion on the ground that:

(i) the alternative alignment is not only longer and costlier, but will also affect more land, structures and wells.

(ii) it requires major bridge across Sankaraparani river for 308m.

(iii) the Project Appraisal Committee has asked to scale down the cost of the project, whereas the increase in length will automatically escalate the project cost.

20. However, the District Collector, Villupuram, in his letter dated 31.8.2010 had addressed the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and requested to address NHAI to re-consider their decision regarding Gingee by-pass, since the by-pass proposed by the NHAI is in close proximity of the town and it will not serve the purpose of avoiding congestion. Again in his letter dated 12.1.2011, addressed to the Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, the District Collector, Villupuram, suggested a slight modification to the alignment proposed by NHAI, according to the representation received from the President, Town Panchayat, Gingee, wherein it was suggested that the proposed by-pass may be laid along the Chetpet road prior to Sankarabarani River bridge and requested to address the NHAI to consider the feasibility of the suggestion. The deviation suggested by the President, Town Panchayat, and recommended by the District Collector, was inspected by the Chief General Manager, NHAI, Chennai and the technical opinion of the DPR Consultant who had designed the by-pass also was called for by the NHAI. The DPR consultant had studied in detail the alignment as suggested by the local Panchayat and recommended by the District Collector, Villupuram and reported that this alignment cannot fulfil the engineering requirements of NHAI standards and as such, it is not feasible to change the alignment as recommended by the District Collector. The Project Director, NHAI, Villupuram in his letter dated 24.5.2011, addressed to the District Collector, has stated that the change in alignment is not feasible. The Project Director, NHAI, has also stated that the Chetpet road indicated in Option IV in the affidavit, is running along the River bank and the suggested alignment on existing road with acute bend is not feasible to provide proper curve and bridge etc., as per design standards of NHAI. Since the River is very nearer to road, curve will come inside the River which is technically not feasible. Hence, the change in alignment to the by-pass is not feasible.

21. In the above circumstances, the objections were made by the petitioners, and they assail the Notification on the ground that there is no proper description of the lands, and therefore, it is vitiated and their objections were not considered properly. Hence, they sought to quash the Notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act.

22. To examine the above position, at the first instance, it is relevant to notice Section 3-A of the Act, which reads as follows:

"Section 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) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land.

(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language."

23. On a perusal of the Notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act, in compliance of the above provisions, from the records, it reveals that the Notification is made with proper description, namely, the extent of lands, boundaries, measurements and other particulars. The second respondent published the substance of Section 3-A(1) Notification in local newspapers, namely in Tamil in "Dinamani" and in English in "The New Indian Express" on 3.12.2010. The brief particulars of lands sought to be acquired, have been given in the Schedule therein, as required by law. It is an admitted position that Section 3-A(1) Notification is only preliminary Notification, notifying the intention of the Government to acquire certain lands for public purpose, for building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway. It is further seen from the records that there is proposed alignment for four laning of Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai-Krishnapuram Section, with the particular stretch of Gingee by-pass to start at Km.63/090 and end at Km.71/260 with a total length of 10.76 kms. and it was restructured as two-lane due to lack of cost effectiveness and the new alignment starts from km.65.548 and ends at Km.68.625 with a length of 4.77 kms. in NH66. Accordingly, the Schedule to the Notification contains the name of the District, Taluk, Village, Survey Number, type of land, nature of land and the area (in square meters), which includes Tindivanam Taluk/Tindivanam Village, Gingee Taluk/Krishnapuram and Sirukadambur Villages and also includes Sakkarapuram Village, where the petitioners' lands are located. The sketch for the same has also been enclosed in the typed set of papers produced before this Court. For instance, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18688 of 2011, namely, A.R.Adil Basha, he is the owner of the land comprised in R.S.No.68/1A2 of an extent of 1000 Sq.Metres, situated at Sakkarapuram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District and the details have been shown in the Schedule to the Notification. Similar position has also been indicated in respect of the other lands belonging to the other petitioners. Therefore, there is brief description of the land as contemplated under the provisions of Section 3-A of the Act.

24. It is to be seen that to meet the requirement of Section 3-A of the Act, there should be brief description of the lands in the acquisition Notification and the plan may also be made available. Then the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately. In order to examine the question as to whether the impugned Notification meets the requirement of the description of the lands as contemplated under Section 3-A(2) of the Act, it would not be possible to proceed to determine the necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of land without preparation of a proper plan. The appendix to the impugned Notification shows that in many cases, small parts of the larger chunks of lands have been notified for acquisition. Therefore, the Notification in question makes the plan/sketch of the area in occupation. The absence of plan also renders a right to file objections under Section 3-C(1) of the Act, nugatory. If there is proper description of the lands with other particulars and plan/sketch, the objector, namely the land owner can make an effective objection.

25. In this regard, similar matter arose for consideration before the Supreme Court, reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 (Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory), wherein, the Supreme Court laid down the legal proposition. In this case, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision reported in 1999 (7) SCC 44 (Delhi Admn. Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban), in which, the Supreme Court laid down the proposition while dealing with the case under the Land Acquisition Act, which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act, there is no right to object to acquisition of land, except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to be decided independently of the right to file objections. De hors the right to file objection, the validity of the Notification has to be considered.

26. It is vehemently argued that the objection of every aspect including the acquisition of land, has to be considered. But, the objection about the use of land alone is a matter required to be considered under the provisions of National Highways Act, and such a right is now settled as a legal right with regard to questioning the use of the lands and not the acquisition.

27. Analysing the above factors and on a perusal of the entire records, it reveals that a person could now which part of the lands is under acquisition in order to make an effective objection in respect of the use of the lands. The particulars shown in the Schedule to the Notification as contemplated under Section 3-A(2) of the Act, are only brief description and the brief description does not mean a complete description and that would not be the intention of the statute. The acquisition Notification is only required to convey to the persons claiming interest in the lands about the intention of the Government to acquire a particular land. The description given in the impugned Notification meets the requirement under Section 3-A of the Act.

28. A perusal of the objections made by the petitioners, reveals that mere perusal of the plan clearly indicated the fact that even though it is named as by-pass road for Gingee, but in all practical purposes, the by-pass road is proposed to be laid only through Gingee Town and therefore, it not a by-pass road and it is only widening a portion of the road at Gingee and by laying such a road, it will affect thousands of individuals, traffic congestion, affecting agricultural lands, water resources and school going children. The by-pass road should have been made only through Chetpet Road without touching the Gingee Town. The competent authority has forgotten the nearby religious town at Tiruvannamalai and the hardship in case of acquisition of lands. The petitioners have also raised objection that in the publication in the newspapers, the description of the lands proposed to be acquired, has not been properly given.

29. The real intention of the petitioners as seen from the objections is mainly on the public cause and not the individual and they have not stated as to what could be the prejudice if the land is acquired and as to what kind of damages it causes to the petitioners, irrespective of the fact whether there is proper description or not.

30. It is to be vividly seen that the Notification and the description made in the Schedule, is in compliance of the provisions of the Act and also the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions, and therefore, this Court has no reason to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no proper description of the lands as per the provisions of the Act. This contention fails and there is no substance in the same.

31. As regards the question of consideration of the objections independently by the competent authority, it is appropriate to notice Section 3-C of the Act, which reads as follows:

"Section 3-C: Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3-A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections.

(3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final."

32. Though it is contended that the competent authority has extracted the report of the NHAI and considered the objections, it is seen from the records that the competent authority, after considering every aspect, including the report of the NHAI, passed a speaking order, considering every objection raised by the petitioners and decided the objections after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. While dealing with the objections, it is for the competent authority to take note of what are all the background materials to decide about each and every objection, including the report of the NHAI. Merely because the competent authority had taken into account the report of the NHAI, it cannot be construed that the competent authority has not independently decided the objections. On a perusal of the order passed by the competent authority, it is seen that he has considered each and every aspect of the matter and over-ruled the objections, taking into account the larger public interest involved in the case and the need for implementation of the project, after following the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the competent authority's order, after due consideration of every aspect, cannot be stated to have been passed without application of mind. In fact, it is the order in every aspect of considering the petitioners' objections.

33. The petitioners assail the order of the competent authority on the ground that he has relied on the private consultancy report as furnished by the NHAI. In this regard, it is to be seen that the detailed project consultants are the technical experts, who have been appointed by the NHAI for preparation of the detailed project report based on the feasibility study and the engineering requirement, ground geometry as well as various options. The project alignment has been suggested after taking into account all the vital factors, such as cost to be incurred, convenience of the public, design standards of NHAI, the extent of lands to be acquired, etc., and thereafter, the approval was granted by the Public Private Participation Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) and the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure (CCI). It is under the domain of the authorities to have the expert opinion including consideration of the feasibility report and it is an administrative requirement, and the same always form part of the execution of any larger public project, which involves taking note of the feasibility report and the economical viability and other matters concerned with the Government projects. The expert opinion has been taken into account by the competent authority while deciding the objections and it cannot be found to be the procedures/rules in deviation, and there is due consideration of every objections. Therefore, the contention in this regard also has no substance and the same has to be rejected.

34. One more aspect which has to be noticed by this Court in the process of these land acquisition proceedings, is that the District Collector, who is not concerned with the land acquisition proceedings, has made certain recommendations based on the request of the villagers/land owners. It is more important to analyse as to what kind of role can a District Collector is entitled to play in the matter of land acquisition proceedings. It is only the competent authority who has to initiate the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to National Highways project. Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act defines the competent authority as any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification. That authority shall have the powers to cause the substance of the Notification to be published under Section 3-A of the Act, in the manner provided therein, to hear the objections under Section 3-C(2), to make a report under Section 3-D for declaration of acquisition, to take steps under Section 3-E for possession, to determine the amount payable as compensation, under Section 3-G and to pay the amount of compensation deposited by the Central Government, under Section 3-H of the Act. The competent authority has been assigned with the powers of Civil Court, under Section 3-I of the Act. If such powers are vested with the competent authority, it is for that authority alone under the Act who can exercise such powers/functions/duties assigned exclusively for that purpose. In this case, the competent authority has acted as per law and proceeded with the land acquisition proceedings.

35. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Collector's recommendations are more relevant for consideration of the objections, which had been lost sight of by the competent authority. In this connection, it is to be stated that the District Collector has taken the views of the land owners/public in the matter of public concern and who brought the same to the notice of the Government as well as the Competent authority and also recommended certain things for re-alignment and also suggested alternatives, and thereby, caused serious delay in the execution of the project, and the said act of the District Collector is contrary to the provisions of the Act, when he is not empowered to act on behalf of any person concerned in the acquisition proceedings. The intention of the District Collector and the manner in which he has recommended certain aspects, are not appreciable in the matter of execution of a public project. Therefore, this Court is inclined to observe that in the acquisition of the lands for a public purpose, it is only the authority concerned, who is assigned with the task of acquisition, who is competent to look into the matter and it is not for others to come into the picture and play some role. Such a role should be avoided in the matters which may cause prejudice to the stake-holders.

36. Coming to the next aspect, time and again, the underlying principles for acquisition of land for a public purpose and its impact on the persons aggrieved, are well defined. The means of transportation are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation in a growing global development, since our country has now embarked upon various ambitious programmes of economic advancement to make our country economically competitive in the global economy, and for the progress of our country, the means of transportation are very important, for which, very often, there is a need for acquisition of land for the development of a public road transport system and widening the roads forming the National Highways in the country. In the process of such acquisition, the projects are time bound. If there is any delay in the project, it may cause and incur heavy financial loss. In most of the cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. Challenges are generally in the shape of Writ Petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders, by way of stay or injunction, are also made.

37. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. A public purpose will always prevail over a private interest.

38. In the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interest of justice and public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same, and therefore, the Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indeed, any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition is vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement, that the persons interested shall be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. Now, the trend is that as far as the compensation is concerned, the authorities as well as Courts are arriving at a fair determination of compensation, taking into consideration the various factors, namely, the market value, potentiality of the lands and other developments of the lands in question. Ultimately, there are many ways of affording appropriate relief while redressing the grievances of the petitioners and it is a matter of balancing the competing interests and beyond that, it is neither possible nor advisable to say anything. These considerations will be duly borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with the challenges to the acquisition proceedings. This view is also endorsed in various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court.

39. With the above observations, and for the foregoing reasonings, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. It is always open to the petitioners herein to claim a fair and proper compensation for their lands, which are acquired for a public purpose, in which event, the respondents are bound to consider the same, taking into consideration the various factors in determining a fair and proper compensation.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court