National Highways Authority of India v. A. Muruganandham

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.4.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAHWrit Appeal No.260 of 2008 & Writ Petition No.4320 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.No.260 of 20081. National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its Project Director, Trichy.2. The Special District Revenue Officer-cum- Competent Authority (LA), National Highways, Villupuram-605 602... Appellant in W.A.No.260 of 2008/Third Partiesvs.1. A.Muruganandham2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition National Highway, 45, Ulundurpettai, Villpuram District.3. The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District. .. Respondents in W.A.No.260 of 2008/Petitioner & Respondents A.Muruganandham.. Petitioner in W.P.No.4320 of 2007vs. 1. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition National Highway 45, Ulundurpettai, Villpuram District.2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District. .. Respondents in W.P.No.4320 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forthe records of the first respondent made under Section 3G(3) under theNational Highways Act, 1956, Na.Ka.No.A/BPR/No.147/2004, dated 15.7.2005and published in Thina Thanthi on 20.7.2005 in Cuddalore Edition andquash the same as illegal and forbearing the first respondent fromtaking any further action in pursuance of the impugned order in respectof the lands belong to the petitioner situated at U.Keeranur Village,Ulundurpet Taluk, comprising Survey No.450/3A 5, 0.05 acres, 450/3A 6,0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 7-0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 8-0.02.5 acres, 450/3B0.02.5 acres (Old Survey No.450/3 Total Extent 0.85 cent).Writ Appeal against the order of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2007 inWrit Petition No.4320 of 2007, dated 2.11.2007.For appellants in W.A : Mr.P.Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of IndiaFor respondents in W.A : Mr.G.Ranganathan for R-1 Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. for RR-2 & 3 For petitioner in W.P : Mr.G.Ranganathan For respondents in W.P : Mr.D.Sreenivasan,Addl.G.P.COMMON JUDGMENT(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J) The Writ Petition was preferred by the petitioner-A.Muruganandham,for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the orderdated 15.7.2005 passed under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act,1956, published in "Thina Thanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), with a furtherprayer to forbear the first respondent from taking any further actionpursuant to the said order in respect of the lands belonging to thepetitioner situated at at U.Keeranur Village, Ulundurpet Taluk,comprising Survey No.450/3A 5, 0.05 acres, 450/3A 6, 0.01.5 acres,450/3A 7-0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 8-0.02.5 acres, 450/3B 0.02.5 acres (OldSurvey No.450/3 Total Extent 0.85 cent).2. The lands in question were acquired under the National HighwaysAct (for short, "N.H. Act") by the National Highways Authority of India(hereinafter referred to as "the National Highways Authority").3. In the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge having passed theinterim order, has made it absolute and as the Writ Petition waspreferred without impleading the National Highways Authority as party-respondent, the Writ Appeal has been preferred by the National HighwaysAuthority after obtaining leave of the Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. In the aforesaid background, both the Writ Petition and the WritAppeal were heard together for disposal by this common judgment.5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner challenged theNotification dated 15.7.2005 issued under Section 3G(3) of the NationalHighways Act on the ground that the writ petitioner was not givennotice. He relied on the publication made in the newspaper "ThinaThanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), dated 20.7.2005 at Sl.No.42 to show thatthe name of the writ petitioner was not reflected therein, but the nameof one Rajalakshmi was shown. It is submitted that no notice was givento the writ petitioner and without hearing, the impugned Notificationwas issued.6. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India,appearing on behalf of the National Highways authorities, submitted thatcertain lands adjoining National Highways-45 in U.Keeranur Village,Ulundhurpettai Taluk, were the lands in question to be acquired by theNational Highways Authority for four laning and improvements of NH-45and for this purpose, the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram wasappointed as competent authority under Section 3(a) of the N.H. Act,1956 by the Central Government Gazette No.858 S.O.1162(3), dated24.11.2001. Subsequently, a Special District Revenue Officer wasappointed solely for acquisition of the lands for National Highways,Villupuram. The Government of India re-designated the Special DistrictRevenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Villupuram, asthe competent authority under the N.H. Act.As per the land plan schedules furnished by the Project Director,Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India,Tiruchirapalli, the followings lands in U.Keeranur Village ofUlundhurpettai Taluk were acquired.Sl.No.R.S.No.Acquired Area1450/3A50.00.52450/3A60.01.53450/3A70.01.54450/3A80.02.55450/3B0.02.5Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the N.H. Act was published on14.6.2004, followed by paper publication in Tamil newspaper "Dinamalar"dated 7.7.2004 and in English newspaper "The New Indian Express" dated7.7.2004. Apart from that, the Notification aforesaid was also publishedin the Village on 13.7.2004 under Section 3-A(3). Within the statutoryperiod of 21 days, six other land owners, viz. (1)Thiru.Periyannan, S/o https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Muniyan (2)Kuppusamy, S/o Mannankatti, (3)Palanival, S/o Muniyan, (4)Tmt.Vaijayanthimala, D/o Subramaniyan, (5)Tmt.Muthuammal, W/o Mottaiyanand (6)Radhakrishnan, S/o Venkatachala Padayachi, filed objections.After necessary enquiry, the Special District Revenue Officer (LandAcquisition), National Highways, disallowed the objections, videproceedings Rc.A23/2003/NH-45/Ulundh/dated 10.1.2005. The writpetitioner never preferred any objection to the said acquisition of thelands at the time of the Notification issued under Section 3-A(1) ofthe N.H. Act. Subsequently, the Government of India approved and published thedeclaration under Section 3-D(1) in the Gazette Notification dated4.5.2005, followed by issuance of public notice under Section 3-(G)(3),dated 15.7.2005, as impugned in the present Writ Petition. Paper noticewas published in the Tamil daily "Thina Thanthi" on 20.7.2005 and in theEnglish newspaper "The Hindu", dated 20.7.2005 and public hearing wasalso given on 31.8.2005 at Ulundurpettai.It is further submitted that the writ petitioner sent an Advocatenotice on 24.9.2005 to the competent authority through his counselMr.N.Anandhan, stating that he has inherited the lands through hismother Tmt.Adhilakshmi and grandmother Tmt.Sivabooshani Ammal. By thesaid notice, he desisted the acquisition of lands and also desisted fromdisbursing the compensation for the lands.Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the NationalHighways Authority, further submitted that prior to the filing of theWrit Petition, award was passed on 31.1.2007 after hearing the parties.He also relied on the relevant portion of the award, wherein the case ofthe writ petitioner has been discussed. 7. From the award, it appears that the objections of the writpetitioner-Muruganandham and Alagappa Udayar, were noticed, who claimedownership of 0.42-1/2 acres of land by inheritance. It was found thatthey were not enjoying the property and one Mr.Naseerudheen Yousuf whohas sold the property, earlier purchased the property fromMr.Pichaikkaran in 1982 itself and thereafter, number of transactionshave taken place in the property. The present enjoyers of the propertyare Thiru.Kuppusamy, Tmt.Rajalakshmi and Thiru.Mohamed Sharief, who havebuilt their house more than ten years prior to the acquisition. The writpetitioner and another who claimed to be the owners of the property,were not able to identify the portion claimed by them.8. It was submitted on behalf of the National Highways Authoritythat the name of Tmt.Rajalakshmi having been shown in the Revenuerecords, it was reflected in the notice and the writ petitioner cannotclaim that his name should have been published, there being a disputerelating to his title. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. It appears from the award aforesaid that the writ petitioner andanother having been found not enjoying the property for more than 25years and as they could not identify the property claimed by them, itwas decided to deposit the award amount in a competent civil Court andrefer the dispute. 10. It is stated on behalf of the National Highways Authority thatthe award amount was subsequently deposited in the District Court,Villupuram on 29.8.2007 and the dispute was also referred before theDistrict Judge under Section 3-H(4) of the N.H. Act.11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tahsildar, whilesupporting the case of the National Highways Authority, relied on theSupreme Court decision reported in 2000 (2) S.C.C. 48 (MunicipalCouncil, Ahmednagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others). In thesaid case, the Supreme Court held that the land acquisitionnotifications cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, after publication of the award.12. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and as we findthat there is a dispute relating to the right and title of the writpetitioner in respect of the property in question and as the matter hasalready been referred to the District Court, Villupuram, we are notinclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner.13. The order of interim stay which was made absolute on 2.11.2007in M.P.No.3 of 2007 in W.P.No.4320 of 2007, is vacated. In the result,the Writ Petition is dismissed.The interim order passed in the Writ Appeal on 29.2.2008 is alsovacated. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The Miscellaneous Petition isclosed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as tocosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarcs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Trichy.2. The Special District Revenue Officer-cum- Competent Authority (LA), National Highways, Villupuram-605 602.3. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition National Highway 45, Ulundurpettai, Villpuram District.4. The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District.1 cc To Mr.P.Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of India, SR.20809.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.20191.1 cc To Mr.G.Ranganathan, Advocate, SR.20003.Writ Appeal No.260 of 2008 & Writ Petition No.4320 of 2007 NG(CO)RVL 23.04.2008