Madras High Court
K.Saramariappan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 August, 2024
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.2176, 2178, 2179,2182 of 2022 &
6106,6109, 6113 of 2023 & 2536, 2539, 2541 of 2024
W.P(MD)No.2474 of 2022:
1.K.Saramariappan
2.S.Noorjahan
3.S.Ganesan
4.S.K.Moorthy
5.P.Somasundaram
6.N.Seethalakshmi
7.R.Rajalakshmi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Repreented by its Secretary to Government,
Highways & Minor Ports (HQI) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
_________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Chief Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Chennai-600 025.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Tirunelveli. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the land acquisition proceedings issued by the respondent in G.O.(2D)
No.19 Highways and Minor Ports ( HQI) Department, dated 26.02.2019
published in Tamilnadu Government Gazatte Part-II-Section-2, dated
27.03.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in so for it
is against the interest of the petitioners with regards to properties in i)
Ward No.A, Block No.9, T.S.No.324, bearing Door No.631, Main Road,
Kovilpatti belong to the first petitioner , ( item -53) (ii) Ward No.A,
Block No.9, T.S.No.325, bearing Door No.1, Ilayarasanthal Road,
Kovilpatti belong to the second petitioner , ( item -54 ) (iii) Ward No.-A,
Block No.9, T.S.No.325, bearing Door No.1A, Ilayarasanthal Road,
Kovilpatti belong to the third petitioner, (item-54) (iv) Ward No-A, Block
_________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
No.9, T.S.No.320/2, bearing Door No.2, Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti
belong to the fourth petitioner, (item-51) (v) Ward No.-A, Block No.9,
T.S. No.318/2 & 319/2, bearing Door No.3&4, Ilayarasanthal
Road,Kovilpatti belong to the fifth petitioner, (item-49) and 50) (vi)
Ward NO.A, Block No.9, T.S.No.313/2, bearing Door No.6 & 7,
Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti belong to the sixth petitioner (Item-46)
(vii) Ward No.A, Block No.9, T.S.No.312/2 bearing Door No.630,
Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti belong to the seventh petitioner
(item-45).
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Govindaraj
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.6465 of 2023:
1.M.Gurusamy
2.P.Sithavaraj
3.K.Eswari
4.A.Joseph
5.S.Jayalalitha
6.K.Paulraj .. Petitioners
Vs.
_________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Highways & Minor Ports (HQI) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Chief Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Chennai-600 025.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to the land acquisition proceedings issued by the respondents in G.O.
(2D) No.19 Highways and Minor posts (HQ1) Department, dated
26.02.2019 published in Tamilnadu Government Gazette part-II-
Section-2, dated 27.03.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and
unsustainable in so for it is against the interest of the petitioners with
regards to properties (i) Ward No.C, Block No.20, T.S.No.96/2, bearing
Door No.207A, Ilayarasanthal road, Kovilpatti Main road, Kovilpatti
belong to the first petitioner, (item-80) (ii) Ward No.C, Block No.20,
_________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
T.S.No.97/2, bearing Door No.207B, Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti
belong to the second petitioner (item-81) (iii) Ward No.C, Block No.20,
T.S.No.103/2, bearing Door No.211, Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti
belong to the third petitioner (item-86) (iv) Ward No.C, Block No.20,
T.S.No.102/2, bearing Door No.210, Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti
belong to the fourth petitioner, (item-85) (v) Ward No.C, Block No.20,
T.S.No.107/2, 104/2 & 105/2 bearing Door No.212 & 213,
Ilayarasanthal Road, Kovilpatti belong to the fifth petitioner, (item-87, 88
& 89) (vi) Ward No.C, Block No.20, T.S.No.106/2, bearing Door No.633,
Main Road, Kovilpatti belong to the sixth petitioner (item-90).
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Govindaraj
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.2540 of 2024:
1.M.Gurusamy
2.P.Sithavaraj
3.K.Eswari
4.A.Joseph
5.S.Jayalalitha
_________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
6.K.Paulraj .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Highways & Minor Ports (HQI) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Chief Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Chennai-600 025.
5.The Divisional Engineer,
(NABARD & Rural Roads)
Highways Department,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating
to Impugned notice issued and signed by the 5th respondent on
31.01.2024 relating to removal of construction for acquisition of lands
for service road for Railway under Bridge in Ilayarasanenthal Road,
Kovilpatti Town, Thoothukudi District and quash the same.
_________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions seek to challenge the acquisition of the respective petitioners’ properties for forming a service road on either side of the underpass (road under bridge) at Ilayarasanthal road, Kovilpatti Town.
2. Initially, the respondents had planned to construct a road over bridge in Paruvakudi – Kovilpatti – Eatayapuram - Vembar Road at Kovilpatti Town. Since a large extent of land was to be acquired for putting up this road over bridge, on the representation of the Merchant Association of Kovilpatti, the respondents modified the same into constructing the underpass. The lands had been acquired and the underpass has been constructed and opened to public. Since the traffic flows through this underpass, the need for forming a service road on _________ Page 7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 either side of the road under bridge was felt. For this purpose, the respondents sought to acquire portions of the petitioners’ property along with the lands of others.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is no requirement for the same. The petitioners would also submit that the Section 15(2) notice was issued in the name of the previous land owners and therefore, they were in the dark about the proceedings. They came to know about the same later and had immediately approached the authorities and had given their objections in the form of a legal notice. The petitioners had also offered alternate solutions, whereby the respondents could acquire vacant space available on the western side of the lands proposed to be acquired, which belong to the Government. Similarly on the eastern side, there is another road, called Ettayapuram which is available for easy movement to all big and small vehicles. The petitioners would submit that without considering their objections, the respondents have published Section 15(1) notifications in the Government Gazette, dated 27.03.2019. The petitioners had in fact appeared and given their objections. They _________ Page 8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 would submit that till date, no award has been passed. The petitioners submit that even without passing the award, they have been threatening to demolish the building. The petitioners are all small time traders having their shops in the lands that are proposed to be acquired. Therefore, they have come forward with the respective writ petitions.
4. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners represented that the procedure as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (herein after referred as “the Act”) has not been followed. They would further submit that before the publication contemplated under Section 15(1) of the Act, a notice has to be issued to the owner and other persons having interest in such lands that are sought to be acquired to show cause why the lands should not be acquired. Apart from the personal notices, the Government was also required to give a public notice as prescribed.
5. The argument of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that under Section 15(3) of the Act, it is only after considering the objections given by the owner or the person having interest in the land, the _________ Page 9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 publication under Section 15 (1) of the Act has to be issued. However, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the objections submitted by the petitioners have been considered and thereafter, the Section 15 (1) publication has been effected.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, would submit that the lands for the proposed service road on either side has already been acquired to a considerable length and it is only the petitioners who owned portions near the ‘T’ junction, who have been protesting and it is not possible to complete the project without acquiring the said land. He would further submit that the provision of the service road was very essential as persons owning property on either side of the underpass have no other access to reach the State Highway Urban road which is situated on the south.
7. After hearing the submissions, a question was put by this Court to the petitioners that taking note of the larger public interest and the fact _________ Page 10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 that a considerable portion of the lands have been acquired whether the petitioners intended to put the entire project on hold. The learned counsels for the petitioners, on instructions, thereupon represented that they had no objection, if the service road is acquired to the same breadth of 5.25 meters as already taken by the authorities for forming this service road till the property of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court had passed the following order on 05.08.2024:
“A combined sketch prepared by the Divisional Engineer (H), Nabard and Rural Roads, Tirunelveli, signed by him on 12.12.2023 has been produced for the scrutiny of this Court. The portion coloured in pink is the existing land which according him is of a width of 0.8 metres to 5.2 metres. The respondent/Highways Department shall therefore, measure the breadth of the Highway land which is coloured in pink and which is to the north of the property that has been washed in blue, yellow, green and red colours running southwards and hitting the SHU (State Highway Urban) Road. The portions that have been colour washed in yellow are the disputed properties. The officials shall therefore, measure the breadth of this extent and identify the extent to which 5.2 metres would stretch into the properties of the petitioners and submit a sketch on 07.08.2024 demarcating the same.
_________ Page 11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
2. It is informed by Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General that the officials will be inspecting the property at 10.00 am on 06.08.2024.
3. The representatives of the petitioners shall also be present during the measurement.”
8. As directed by this Court, the officials had measured the properties in the presence of the owners and submitted a sketch. However, since the sketch did not reflect the exact breadth up to which the respondents are proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners, once again by an order, dated 07.08.2024, this Court had directed the respondents to prepare the sketch which would reflect the above. Today, the respondents have submitted a sketch giving the measurements of the service road which was measuring 5.25 meters breadth in the area belonging to the petitioners' flush to the lands already acquired for putting up the service road. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the sketch does not reflect the true picture as on cite and also measurements. However, no document or sketch has been produced to substantiate the same or contradic the sketch now prepared by the respondents was contrary to the situation on site. _________ Page 12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
9. On instructions from the officials present in Court, the learned Additional Advocate General has stated that land measuring only an extent of 5.25 meters in breadth would be acquired from each of the petitioners’ land right up to where the road meets the State Highway Road. At the point where the road meets the highway would extend to a breadth of 5.40 meters.
10. Though the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would insist upon the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the said request, since the sketch as prepared by the respondents and signed by all the officials depicts the picture of site. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall lay the service road as set out in the sketch filed into the Court on 08.08.2024 and signed by the officials on 07.08.2024 which is colour washed blue, yellow and brown. The sketch shall form part of the order. The respondents had also given the measurements for the yellow washed area immediately abutting the underpass. Both these sketches shall form part of the record and the same is set out hereunder:
_________ Page 13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 _________ Page 14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 _________ Page 15 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024
11. With the above observations, these Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To
1.TThe Secretary to Government, Highways & Minor Ports (HQI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Chief Engineer, (NABARD & Rural Roads) Highways Department, Chennai-600 025.
5.The Divisional Engineer, (NABARD & Rural Roads) Highways Department, Tirunelveli.
_________ Page 16 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 P.T.ASHA, J.
gbg W.P.(MD) Nos.2474 of 2022, 6465 of 2023 & 2540 of 2024 08.08.2024 _________ Page 17 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis