Dr.Mrs.Chellarani DavidM/s.Grace Hospital v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

System, Electrified Suburban Train System, construction of CombinedRailway Terminal, Inner Circular Corridor Railway, along with theconstruction of Inner and Outer Ring Roads. A proposal was mooted forthe creation of Outer Ring Road to a length of 62.30km, width of 122m(400') wide providing for 3 lane dual carriage way with service laneson both sides. Lands have been acquired for the above said publicpurpose in II phases. The Government of Tamil Nadu has also approvedthe proposal for the acquisition of lands. Accordingly, the proposal ofthe second respondent, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority hasbeen approved by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.381, Housing andUrban Development Department, dated 25.05.1993 and approving theproposal for the formation of Outer Ring Road, a notification wasissued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4.In pursuant to the said approval granted by the firstrespondent, a notification was issued in G.O.Ms.No.523, Housing andUrban Development Department, dated 08.12.1999 proposing to acquirelands. In pursuant to the said notification, a publication was effectedin the Government Gazette on 05.01.2000. It was published in the localdailies having wide circulation on 22.01.2000 and locality publicationwas made on 25.01.2000. The 5(A) enquiry was conducted on 10.03.2000,13.03.2000 and 14.03.2000. After considering the objections, an orderwas passed by the fifth respondent on 21.06.2000. A declaration waspassed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.15, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department dated 17.01.2001.5.Notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act were sent on30.11.2001. In pursuant to the said notice, award enquiries wereconducted under Section 11 of the Act on 26.12.2001, 27.12.2001 and28.12.2001. Thereafter, an award was passed in Award No.1 of 2002 dated31.01.2002. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on09.04.2002. The Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitionerchallenging the declaration under Section 6 of the Act as well as theaward enquiry notice on 18.03.2002.6.The petitioner herein is a qualified Medical Practitioner.She has put up construction in Survey No.167/2A by establishing aHospital in the name of M/s.Grace Hospital. The petitioner has also putup a Pharmacy and residential house in the said place. The Hospital hasbeen functioning from the year 1985 onwards. It is situated at thejunction/intersection of the Chennai – Thiruvallur High Road and theOuter Ring Road. The Hospital is having a Trauma care performingnumerous Orthopeadic surgeries. Apart from that, it has also anautomatic anesthetic ventilator. It has got facilities like emergencycare services. It is a 21 bedded Hospital, which is stated to perform1000 deliveries every year. Apart from the same, it has an approvedFamily Welfare Centre of the State of Tamil Nadu, a recognized Unit forintegrated disease Surveillance, an approved Unit by the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Aids Control Society and an empanelled Service Provider NetworkHospital (Insurance). It is also stated to have the support of theSpecialist in the field of Cardiology, General Surgery, PlasticSurgery, Oncology Surgery, Orthopaedic, Obstetrics & Gynaecology.According to the petitioner, there is no other Hospital nearby within aradius of 10 kilometres with the above said facilities and theGovernment District Hospital is at 17kms away.7.An extent of 0.10.0 hectares of land in Survey No.167/2A2corresponding to 1435.1 square metres of the land, in which thepetitioner's Hospital, Pharmacy and residential house are situated,have been sought to be acquired by the respondents by issuance of thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioner appeared forthe 5-A enquiry. 8.The petitioner was called for further enquiry by the noticedated 08.05.2000. The petitioner gave objections by the letter dated27.05.2000 stating that her objections have not been considered. Shehas also enclosed her earlier objections vide her letter dated03.03.2000. The petitioner's objections have been rejected on21.06.2000. She gave further objections stating that her earlierobjections have not been considered and the objections said to havebeen made have not been raised by her. 9.However, a declaration was passed in G.O.Ms.No.15, Housingand Urban Development Department, dated 17.01.2001. Thereafter, inpursuant to the notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, anaward was passed in Award No.1 of 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner hasfiled the present Writ Petitions, one challenging the declarationissued under Section 6 of the Act and the other challenging the awardenquiry notice.Submissions of the petitioner:10.Shri.C.Franco Louis, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner filed voluminous documents to show that the petitioner'sHospital has been catering to the needs of the local public. It wasplaced on record along with the communication of the second respondentthat there is no other Hospital in the nearby area. Therefore, it issubmitted that when there is a public purpose, it cannot be substitutedby another one, by acquiring the lands. The order passed by therespondents in exercise of the power under Section 3(f) of the Act hasto be set aside, since the procedures contemplated therein and theprinciples enunciated by the Honourable Apex Court, have not beenfollowed. The first respondent has not considered the materialsavailable on record before granting the prior approval. The enquiryconducted under Section 5-A of the Act has been conducted in aperfunctory manner, without even understanding the objections of thepetitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Considering the valuable rights involved, a duty isenjoined upon the 5th respondent to consider the objections objectivelyby applying his mind instead of rejecting the same on irrelevantgrounds. At the time of acquisition, places have been earmarked on bothsides of the proposed road for commercial purposes. The plan originallyproposed, has been changed subsequently and as a result, the propertyof the petitioner has been cut into two. Accordingly, the Hospital,Pharmacy and the residential house can never be saved by consideringany exemption and the remaining property will be of no use without anyaccess. The second respondent has placed on record earlier that thepetitioner's request can be considered at a later point of time forexempting her property. It is not clear as to whether the original planhas been changed. The subsequent communication sent by the ChiefPlanning Officer supports the case of the petitioner. 12.A perusal of the Revised Feasibility Report clearlyindicates that Option No.1 is better one than Option No.2. If therespondents are proceeding with Option No.1, then the petitioner's landcan be exempted, as it comes within the commercial place earmarked. Onthe other hand, if the Option No.2 is adopted, then in the event ofthis Court not willing to quash the proceedings, considering the publicinterest involved, an alternative place can be earmarked for thepetitioner. The Court is not powerless in directing the respondents togive an alternative site and in appropriate cases, the Courts canexercise their discretion by issuing suitable directions. Thepetitioner cannot be non-suited merely on the ground of award havingbeen passed, since the Writ Petitions have been filed on 18.03.2002 andthe 12(2) notices have been received on 09.04.2002. The petitioner hasbeen agitating her rights with the second respondent right from theinitiation of the 5-A proceedings to till date. 13.In support of the said contentions, the learned counselhas made reliance upon the following judgments:"MUNSHI SINGH AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA [(1973) 2 SCC 337]MANDIR SITA RAMJI vs. GOVERNOR OF DELHI [AIR 1974 SC 1868]SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD vs. STATE OF BIHAR [(1993) 4 SCC 255]TAMIL NADU REAL ESTATES LTD. & OTHERS vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION, ETC. & OTHERS [2002-1-L.W.37 S.N.]UNION OF INDIA vs. MUKESH HANS [AIR 2004 SC 4307]HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. vs. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI ANDOTHERS [2005 (5) CTC 789]VIJAYA vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2009 (3) CTC 545]COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. GORDHANDAS BHANJI [AIR 1952 SC 16(1)]MOHINDER SINGH vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER [AIR 1978 SC 851]BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [AIR 2008 SC1771]HARISH CHANDRA vs. DY.L.A.OFFICER [AIR 1961 SC 1500] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ T.RAMARAJ vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [AIR 1994 MADRAS 313]THIRUVENGADAM, R. vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, MADRAS – 9 [1997 (II) CTC 323]JAGDISH CHAND AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [(2005)10 SCC 162]P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [W.P.NO.10918 OF2008 ETC. BATCH DATED 28.01.2010]HANSRAJ H.JAIN vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [(1993) 3 SCC634]PT.PARMANAND KATARA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1989 SC2039]PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMITY vs. STATE OF W.B. [(1996) 4 SCC37]COLLECTOR, 24 PARGANAS vs. LALIT MOHAN MULLICK [AIR 1986 SC 622]"Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the WritPetitions will have to be allowed.Submissions of the respondents:14.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate Generalsubmitted that the Courts will have to see the overwhelming publicinterest involved, as against limited public interest. The petitionerhas not challenged the award and has approached this Court after thepassing of the award. Hence, it is not open to her to challenge theproceedings till the passing of the declaration under Section 6 of theAct. Except the petitioner and three other persons, who have filed WritPetitions, which are heard along with the present Writ Petitions,possession has been taken from all other persons concerned, consideringthe fact that the process of implementing the scheme has alreadycommenced and taking note of the emergent situation the Writ Petitionswill have to be dismissed as this Court shall not exercise thediscretion available under Section 226 of the Constitution of India tothe case of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the Writ Petitions will have to be dismissed.Discussions:15.During the 5-A enquiry proceedings, the petitioner gavespecific objections. The objections are extracted hereunder:"(a) EXEMPTION of my property namely S.No.167/2A (Part) atNemilicheri Village, does not hinder or affect the formation ofRoad in the ORR Project i.e. 60' +60'(b) EXEMPTION of my property does not hinder or affect the futureformation of mass rapid rail system in the ORR Project i.e. 100'(c) My property lies in a portion of the western side end of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ LAND RESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE inthe ORR Project."16.Therefore, a request has been made considering the factthat the earmarked alignment for the railways is not affected and theplace earmarked for the roads on either side of the area is also notaffected, coupled with the public interest involved, the lands of thepetitioner need not be acquired. However, the respondents 2 and 5 havetotally misconstrued the objections of the petitioner. The objectionsthat have been taken into consideration and the remarks given by thesecond respondent, are as follows:No.ObjectionsView of 2nd respondent1Objection seeking enhancedcompensationAs per the Land Acquisition Act,and as fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer, and asapproved by Commissioner,Compensation will be paid.2To provide alternate land orhouse site in lieu ofacquisitionSince the acquisition is forformation of Road, it is notpossible to consider request foralternate land or for residentialplot.3Outer Ring Road to be formedabutting poramboke landOuter Ring Road plan is onealready sanctioned by theGovernment. 100 path has been earmarked for Railways. Now to changethe alignment will lead to newproblems. Therefore it is not fitto consider a different alignment.17.The petitioner gave her objections on 27.05.2000reiterating the fact that her earlier objections have not beenconsidered at all and wrong objections have been noted. Unfortunately,the 5th respondent once again made a mistake in a cryptic manner and bya total non application of mind, has rejected the objections of thepetitioner. The petitioner gave further objections on 18.09.2000,ofcourse after the orders have been passed in the 5-A enquiry.Thereafter, the declaration has been passed in G.O.Ms.No.15, Housingand Urban Development Department, dated 17.01.2001. The petitionerapproached the first respondent by writing a letter dated 01.01.2002seeking exemption. She also sought for a sketch made by the survey teamunder Section 6 of the Right to Information Act 2000. The communicationdated 09.02.2002 of the Chief Planner is extracted hereunder:"CP(ARD)/MemberM.S.V.C."The request of the petitioner may please be perused. It states https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the Hospital is located within the space allocated forcommercial exploitation and hence may be considered for exemptionfrom acquisition. A perusal of the sketch showing the location ofthe hospital, the alignment and the space for commercial spaceindicates, indeed a significant portion falls within thecommercial exploitation space.This appears to be a hospital of fairly long standing from 1985and caters to the surrounding areas. It may be possible for thehospital to be exempted since the alignment is not affected inanyway and in any case after acquisition we would be giving it forcommercial development. Comparing that to a social cause like thishospital may be a more desirable development.For consideration.Pl.discussSd.Chief PlannerSd.Member Secretary4/209.02.02Discussed with MS."18.The reply communications dated 22.02.2002 and 26.02.2002are also extracted hereunder:"As there is policy decision to stick with its alignment in itstotality, it is not possible to agree to the request at themoment. Later the applicant may ask for alienation of the landwith the structure".Sd.Chief PlannerSd.Member Secretary20/222.02.02AP/PATo see the note above approved by MS. Accordingly, put up draftletter to the applicantSd.26/2"19.The petitioner received a letter dated 28.02.2002 from thesecond respondent, which is extracted hereunder:"Petitioner thereafter received letter dated 28.2.2002 from the 2ndrespondent which is extracted below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ BY RPADFrom:To:The Member – Secretary,Dr.(Mrs.)Chellarani David,Chennai MetropolitanGrace HospitalDevelopment Authority,Nemilichery1, Gandhi Irwin Road,Thiruvallur Dist. - 602 024.Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Lr.No.RC 15 / 2001 Unit IVDt.28.2.2002Sir,Sub: CMDA – Traffic Division – ORR Project – LA – Exemption requested – Reply sent.Ref:Your Lr.Dated Nil* * *With reference to your letter cited, I am to inform that a policydecision has been taken by the Govt,. to stick with the alignmentof ORR in its totality. Therefore, the request of applicant toexempt the property/land in S.No.167/2A part of NemilicheryVillage in the ORR alignment may not be considered. Later, theapplicant may apply for alienation of the said land withstructures.Yours faithfullySd/-(for Member Secretary)"20.The above said letters and communications would indicatethat originally what was proposed is to use a portion of thepetitioner's land for the road. That is the reason why the petitionergave her objections seeking exemption. Thereafter, the petitioner hasobtained information from the website of the second respondent on01.09.2008. The said information also shows that the plots have beenearmarked for commercial exploitation on both extreme ends of the OuterRing Road. In this regard, the petitioner sent a letter dated19.08.2009 under the Right to Information Act. The second respondent byletter dated 14.09.2009 replied to the petitioner which is extractedhereunder:"With reference to your letter cited above, the following isfurnished under the RTI Act 2005: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ParaNo.Information sought by thePetitionerReply1You are requested to letme know whether there isany case, where thereexists any institutionserving public cause likea private HOSPITAL, withinthe space provided forcommercial exploitation,other than Grace Hospitalsituate at NemilicheriThe land under acquisition inS.No.167.2A part wherein a medicalshop, a private Hospital and a housereported to be existing is requiredfor formation of road lanes and footpath forming part of the Outer RingRoad.Other than the Petitioner's privateHospital there is no case filed byany institution serving public causeis pending against the acquisitionof land for ORR as per the recordsavailable in CMDA.2You are also requested tokindly let me know whetherthe area ear marked forcommercial exploitation onthe extreme sides of theouter ring road project,has been handed over toGMR infrastructure or toany other agency fordevelopmentThe ORR lands so far acquired isvested with the CMDA and it has notbeen handed over to any other agencyas on date.21.The petitioner sent another letter on 24.09.2009 which wasreplied by the second respondent on 19.10.2009 in the following manner:"With reference to your letter cited above, the following isfurnished under the RTI Act 2005: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ParaNo.Information sought by thePetitionerReply1Admittedly the Hospitalserving public cause is onChennai Thiruvallur HighRoad (NH 205) which is100ft. Road.When there is already 100ft. Highway abutting theHospital in SurveyNo.167/2A part, you arerequested to let us know,whether ignoring the 100ft. Highway, which is morethan a Road Lane will anyplanner representing CMDAform a Road Lane and or aFoot Path in the areaallotted for CommercialExploitation, withparticular reference toS.No.167/2A part, wherethe Hospital ServingPublic Cause stands.Your site is at the junction /intersection of the ChennaiThiruvallur High (CTH) Road and theOuter Ring Road (ORR).The CTH Road (NH 205) is running inthe East to West direction abuttingin the North the S.No.167 ofNemilicheri Village.The proposed ORR passes through theS.No.167/2A of Nemilicheri Villageperpendicularly in the North-Southdirection, which will connectVandalur in the South with Minjur inthe North passing through theNemilicheri Village in the West ofthe Chennai Metropolitan Area.The exact enclosed shows theconfiguration of the ORR. Furtherthere will be a fly-over which willbe designed during execution at thisjunction of CTH Road with ORR.2You are requested toprovide me with theexisting plan showing theRoad Lanes and Foot Pathon Outer Ring Road.The following can be obtained by thePetitioner by contacting the PublicRelations Officer, CMDA:1)The map of the Nemilicheri Villageshowing the alignment of the ORR.Cost Rs.300/-2)Copy of FMB Sketch for S.No.167—Rs.2/-22.The petitioner further applied for the Revised FeasibilityReport which was duly furnished to her. Chapter 9.4(iv) of the RevisedFeasibility Report which deals with Allocation for CommercialDevelopment is extracted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Clause 9.4(iv) of the REVISED FEASIBILITY REPORT which deals withAllocation for Commercial Development is extracted below:Allocation For Commercial Development: Linear development ofcommercial space on a narrow strip of land (27.45m) on either sidefor a 62.3km long corridor has never been adopted anywhere beforeand as such it may not be considered a sound commercial or urbandevelopment proposition.The ToR configuration renders the depth of land ear marked forcommercial development, too small for attracting majorestablishments to set up their facilities, unless they alsoacquire adjacent lands beyond the RoW.In case the linear strip on both sides are posed for commercialdevelopment, the total saleable area will be about 180 hectaresafter allowing for lengths not available for sale in case of waterbodies, intersections, interchanges, high embankments onapproaches to bridges etc. While computing this, stretchescontiguous to present settlements and developments in thecatchment area have also been considered as permissible fordevelopment. At an average price of Rs.45 lakhs / hectare based onguideline values, the sale process will fetch about Rs.81 crores,that too in year 2010 or so. However, this has been discussed withCMDA at different point of time and the estimated revenuerealizable is discussed here below under Option 2.Hence this approach of allocating a narrow strip of land on eitherside for mobilizing resources for funding the project needs to bejettisoned and alternate strategies developed, which are in linewith recent trends in road and urban development.In sum, it can be surmised that ear marking of 30.5 m for therailway reserve and 27.45 m on either side for commercialdevelopment has severely constrained the flexibility ofconfiguring the ORR roadway in line with its positioning as amajor urban arterial.Quite clearly, the disadvantages of the ToR configuration faroutweigh its advantages and hence the configuration proposed inthe ToR needs to be substantially revised."23.Similarly, paragraph 9.5 of the Revised Feasibility Reportdeals with the review of ORR configuration and paragraph 9.6 whichdeals with the configuration Options are produced hereunder:"Option 1: Provision of the transportation corridor in the centreof RoW with the centre-line of PTC in alignment with the centre-line of the RoW as shown in Figure 9.4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As in the case of 27.45 m strip in the ToR configuration, therevised open space area of 25 m width on either side is also notamenable to commercial development. Hence this area could beearmarked for provision of inter-alia green zone, conveying ofutilities and locating way-side amenities. This space could alsobe made available for abutting properties, an commercial basis,for meeting their Open Space Regulation (OSR) requirements.Through this option, the ORR would acquire an aesthetic appealbesides also making available adequate spaces for development ofway-side amenities and utilities. The green zone would alsoeffectively act as a buffer between the transportation corridorand abutting thereby reducing noise and air pollution to thepeople residing / working in the abutting properties.The abutting properties would also be greatly benefited by havinga larger area for construction, as their OSR requirements could bemet from the open space area as explained above.Above all, the significant benefit of this option is that the roadcarriageway can be expanded in a concentric manner by utilisingthe land earmarked for open space area. If the entire stripearmarked for open space area is used for road formation, thenadditional seven lanes could be formed in one direction alone,thereby enabling formation of a 20 land road at some point indistant future.Option 2: Retaining the 50 m open space area as a contiguousentity and placing it side by side with the 72 m widetransportation corridor as shown in Figure 9.5.As against Option 1, one of the advantages of Option 2 is that the50 m strip allocated on one side is considered deep enough formedium range commercial development. Hence the original objectiveof ToR envisaging utilization of part of the space within RoW forcommercial development could still be partly tried out throughthis configuration.In addition to the above, the commercial exploitation of the 50 mstrip is considered to supplement the capital cost of project onone hand and encourage the area development on the other hand.This is on the premises that the Government sponsored areadevelopment activities accelerates the area developmentinitiatives of private sector in any area. In addition, unlikeIntermediate Ring Road, which failed to gear up area development,the ORR is aimed to scatter the development in the peripherals ofChennai Metropolitan Area.After several round of discussions, it was informed by CMDA that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the revenue potential from sale of land in the area between NH 45to NH 205 would be Rs.8 lakhs per ground; between NH 205 to NH5would fetch Rs.3 lakhs per ground and between NH5 to TPP roadwould fetch Rs.4 lakhs per ground. Based on this, the revenuethrough sale of land would come to around Rs.250 croresapproximately over the period of 5-6 years after development.However, the expenditure to be incurred for such development ofstrip to saleable packages is not considered while arriving at theabove revenue. Basis for realizable value of commercial area is asfollows:-StretchKmsTotalhectaresAvailablehectaresAvailable acresAvailableGroundsMarketvaluepergroundRealisablevalue(Rs.inlakhs)60.00%*2.47*12(assumed)(6) * (7)12345678NH45-NH2052914587214.892578.68Rs.8lakhs1719NH205-NH 5199557140.791689.45Rs.3lakhs422NH 5 –TPProad12603688.921067.04Rs.4lakhs3561802497SayRs.250crs.24.Paragraph 9.7 of the Revised Feasibility Report discussedabout the advantages and disadvantages of the two Options namely,Option Nos.1 and 2 which have been extracted above.25.The said advantages and disadvantages as mentioned in theparagraph 9.7 which are also extracted hereunder:"(A) Advantages:The common advantages of both the options over that envisaged inthe ToR are as follows:i. Dynamic road configuration: The suggested options providea dynamic character to the OR by earmarking areas for green zonesincluding that of open space area and planter strip which wouldbreak the monotony and provide an aesthetic appeal to the road.The PTC could also be used for landscaping and arboriculture andlocating wayside amenities, as an interim measure, till thefacilities actually come up on this corridor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii. Optimisation of Central Reserve: The width of reserve forpassenger rail transit facility has been reduced from 30.5 m to 22m thereby releasing 8.5 m for roadway. The nomenclature has alsobeen changed to Public Transportation Corridor, to enable greaterflexibility in deciding its usage at a later date.iii. Provision for NMV Lanes: The NMV lanes of 2.25 m widthon either sides would facilitate segregation of fast movingvehicles from slow moving vehicles, thereby increasing thecarrying capacity of the main carriageway and reduce accidents.iv. Provision for Shoulders: The 1.0 m wide shouldersabutting the main carriageway could be used for construction ofbus bays besides being used for parking by sick vehicles.(B) Disadvantages:Despite the advantages listed in Para 9.7 (A) Option 2 suffersfrom some significant disadvantages which are listed below:(i) Widening the roadway beyond dual-three land carriagewayis impossible without encroaching into the public transportationcorridor;(ii) Since the public transportation corridor is on one sideof the RoW, development of lands abutting ORR on either side maynot happen in an equitable manner.(iii) The configuration itself appears unbalanced and maylead to access related problems from one side of the roadway toproperties on the other side;(iv) The space available for land-scaping and arboricultureis limited to that of the planter strip between main carriagewayand NMV lane"26.The above said facts would clearly indicate thatoriginally plan 1 was contemplated by the second respondent. By thesaid plan, a small extent of land of the petitioner was to be used forthe formation of the Outer Ring Road and remaining extent has beenearmarked for the commercial exploitation. By the subsequent plan 2, itis planned to cut the petitioner's property into two. Therefore,admittedly at the time of giving objections under Section 5-A of theAct, only Option-1 was available. It is trite law that it is for therespondents to put the acquired lands for such use as it wants it tobe. The power of the judicial review over a decision making process,particularly with reference to the adoption of plan 1 or 2, is verymuch limited. It is no doubt true that prior to contemplating plan 2,the respondents have been considering the possibility of giving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exemption to the petitioner's hospital. There is nothing on record toindicate about which one of the plan the respondents are going tofollow. However, the respondents, being the authorities concerned, arethe best judge to decide about the suitability of plan 1 and plan 2.27.The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri.C.FrancoLouis, basing reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court,strenuously contended that the procedures contemplated under Section 3(f) of the Act has not been followed. The records pertaining to theorder passed under Section 3(f) of the Act have been brought before theCourt and the petitioner's counsel was also permitted to peruse thesame. It is clear that appropriate orders have been passed underSection 3(f) of the Act. The petitioner has not raised the nonobservance of the procedures either before the Land Acquisition Officeror thereafter. The petitioner has also not raised such a contention inthe affidavit filed in support of these Writ Petitions and also in therejoinder filed. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to agitatethe same. It is seen that the said order has been passed by the firstrespondent covering the entire project. Therefore, this Court is of theview that at this length of time that too after the proceedings havingbecome concluded, it is not open to the petitioner to raise such acontention. The Honourable Apex Court considering the plea raised atthe fag end of the hearing in P.CHINNANNA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[(1994) 5 SCC 486] has held as follows:"11. We may, however, state that though wehave examined the fresh ground of challenge inrespect of Section 6(1) declaration raised onbehalf of the appellants nearly seven years afterit had become available to them, the same had beendone solely to decide on the scope andapplicability of the first proviso to Section 6(1)and its explanation, inserted into the L.A. Act bythe L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984. Such examinationcannot, therefore, be understood as laying downthat notwithstanding the lapse of time or laches inraising a legal ground in a proceeding underArticle 226 of the Constitution or a proceedingunder Article 136 of the Constitution there is anobligation on the part of the court concerned toexamine such fresh ground. In fact, in relation toacquisition proceeding involving acquisition ofland for public purposes, the court concerned mustbe averse to entertain writ petitions involving thechallenge to such acquisition where there isavoidable delay or laches since such acquisition,if set aside, would not only involve enormous lossof public money but also cause undue delay incarrying out projects meant for general public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ good. When a fresh ground of attack to acquisitionproceedings, even if it involves purely a questionof law, its entertainment cannot be governed by aprinciple different from that which governsentertainment of writ petitions before the HighCourt or proceedings arising therefrom before thisCourt under Article 136 of the Constitution."28.Hence considering the said ratio, this Court is of theview that it is not open to the petitioner to raise such contention andaccordingly, the same is rejected.29.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon thejudgments rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, as well as this Courtstrenuously contended that the entire enquiry conducted by the fifthrespondent has become farce. It is submitted that the proceedings areliable to be set aside for non application of mind, as it involvesadjudication of valuable rights.30.This Court finds considerable force in the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The law regardingconsideration of the objection has been settled by the Honourable ApexCourt as well as the Division Bench of this Court in R.NATARAJAN vs.THE UNION OF INDIA [2010 (6) CTC 337], wherein it has been held asfollows:"19.It is true that a limited right has been givento the land owner or person interested underSection 3(2) of the Act to file objection to theAcquisition proceedings. But such a right given tothe person is not an empty formality, rather it isa substantive right. It has been consistently heldby the Supreme Court that the person whose propertyis being or is intended to be acquired should havea proper and reasonable opportunity of persuadingthe authorities that the acquisition of propertycan be avoided. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India,1973 (2) SCC 337, their Lordships taking notice ofthe object and importance of Section 5-A of the Actobserved as under:"7.Section 5-A embodies a very just andwholesome principle that a person whose property isbeing or is intended to be acquired should have aproper and reasonable opportunity of persuading theauthorities concerned that acquisition of theproperty belonging to that person should not bemade. ... The legislature has, therefore, madecomplete provisions for the persons interested tofile objections against the proposed acquisition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and for the disposal of their objections. It isonly in cases of urgency that special powers havebeen conferred on the appropriate Government todispense with the provisions of Section 5-A:"The aforesaid view has been subscribed by theSupreme Court in the later decision in the case ofUnion of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004 (8) SCC 14,wherein their Lordships held as under: (Para.36,page 28)"It is clear from the above observation ofthis Court that right of representation and hearingcontemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is a veryvaluable right of a person whose property is soughtto be acquired and he should have appropriate andreasonable opportunity of persuading theauthorities concerned that the acquisition of theproperty belonging to that person should not bemade. Therefore, in our opinion, if the appropriateGovernment decides to take away this minimal rightthen its decision to do so must be based onmaterials on record to support the same and bearingin mind the object of Section 5-A."20.Coming back to the order again, by whichobjection was disallowed, admittedly no reasons hadbeen assigned. Although the authority wasexercising the statutory duty to invite objection,hear the parties, and take a decision eitherallowing or disallowing the objection, theauthority was bound to assign valid reasons. As perthe 14th Report relating to Judicial Administrationin India, the Law Commission recommended that evenin administrative decision, provisions should bemade that it should be accompanied by reasons."31.Applying the said principles to the facts of the case, itis very much clear that there is total non application of mind of thefifth respondent in considering the objections of the petitioner.However the question in the present case on hand is as to whether theproceedings can be set aside only on that ground alone. Admittedly, inthe present case on hand the award has been passed. There is no disputeabout the fact that the proposed acquisition is in public interest. Itis also not in dispute that there is an overwhelming public interest inthe construction of a Outer Ring Road, than the hospital belonging tothe petitioner. Therefore the petitioner's interest will have to begive way in favour of the public interest. Considering the publicinterest involved, the Honourable Apex Court has held in RAMNIKLALN.BHATTA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(1997) 1 SCC 134] as follows:"Before parting with this case, we think itnecessary to make a few observations relevant to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land acquisition proceedings. Our country is nowlaunched upon an ambitious programme of all-roundeconomic advancement to make our economycompetitive in the world market. We are anxious toattract foreign direct investment to the maximumextent. We propose to compete with Chinaeconomically. We wish to attain the pace ofprogress achieved by some of the Asian countries,referred to as “Asian tigers”, e.g., South Korea,Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised onall hands that the infrastructure necessary forsustaining such a pace of progress is woefullylacking in our country. The means oftransportation, power and communications are indire need of substantial improvement, expansion andmodernisation. These things very often call foracquisition of land and that too without any delay.It is, however, natural that in most of thesecases, the persons affected challenge theacquisition proceedings in courts. These challengesare generally in the shape of writ petitions filedin High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition isasked for and in some cases, orders by way of stayor injunction are also made. Whatever may have beenthe practices in the past, a time has come wherethe courts should keep the larger public interestin mind while exercising their power of grantingstay/injunction. The power under Article 226 isdiscretionary. It will be exercised only infurtherance of interests of justice and not merelyon the making out of a legal point. And in thematter of land acquisition for public purposes, theinterests of justice and the public interestcoalesce. They are very often one and the same.Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction orother similar orders, more particularly of aninterlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. Thecourts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-visthe private interest while exercising the powerunder Article 226 — indeed any of theirdiscretionary powers. It may even be open to theHigh Court to direct, in case it finds finally thatthe acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that thepersons interested shall also be entitled to aparticular amount of damages to be awarded as alump sum or calculated at a certain percentage ofcompensation payable. There are many ways ofaffording appropriate relief and redressing a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is notthe only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimatelya matter of balancing the competing interests.Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisableto say. We hope and trust that these considerationswill be duly borne in mind by the courts whiledealing with challenges to acquisitionproceedings.""In P.CHINNANNA vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[(1994) 5 SCC 486] as already pointed out TheirLordships have held that in fact, in relation toacquisition proceeding involving acquisition ofland for public purposes, the court concerned mustbe averse to entertain writ petitions involving thechallenge to such acquisition where there isavoidable delay or laches since such acquisition,if set aside, would not only involve enormous lossof public money but also cause undue delay incarrying out projects meant for general publicgood."32.Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the HonourableApex Court and considering the fact that the award has been passed asearly as on 31.01.2002, coupled with the further fact that except thepetitioner's land, all other lands have been taken over and the projecthas been in fact commenced, this Court is of the view that the reliefsought for in the Writ Petitions cannot be granted.Delay in approaching the Court:-33.A Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Apex Court inAFLATOON vs. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI [(1975) 4 SCC 285] has held in thefollowing manner:"Assuming for the moment that the publicpurpose was not sufficiently specified in thenotification, did the appellants make a grievanceof it at the appropriate time? If the appellantshad really been prejudiced by the non-specificationof the public purpose for which the plots in whichthey were interested were needed, they should havetaken steps to have the notification quashed onthat ground within a reasonable time. They did notmove in the matter even after the declaration underSection 6 was published in 1966. They approachedthe High Court with their writ petitions only in1970 when the notices under Section 9 were issuedto them." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34.The ratio laid above has been consistently followed bythis Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court. Therefore, consideringthe said ratio and inasmuch as the award having been passed, thediscretion of this Court cannot be extended to the petitioner.35.The issue can be looked from a different angle as well. Asdiscussed above, there is no iota of doubt about the urgent need ofOuter Ring Road. The facts also reveal that out of the large extent ofland acquired, only some of the land owners alone have filed WritPetitions and those Writ Petitions have been dismissed. Therefore, thisCourt has to take those facts also into consideration, whileconsidering a request to quash the proceedings. In a similar situation,the Honourable Apex Court in NAND KISHORE GUPTA vs. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH [(2010) 10 SCC 282] has held in the following manner:"34.The High Court has refuted all thesecontentions by giving good reasons. We will not gointo these individual cases once the High Court hasdecided not to entertain these pleas and, in ouropinion, correctly. After all, this was anacquisition for building up a highway and theabovementioned writ petitions pertained to the landrequired for interchange. It is obvious that thealignment of the highway cannot be changed, as itsdesign has been prepared after consideration of somany factors by the experts in building the road.Its direction or alignment, therefore, cannot bechanged, with the result, the area which isrequired for interchange, also cannot be changed.This is a typical example of the individual havingto sacrifice his land for the public good. Therecan be no dispute that this road would add to thebetterment of the citizens of East Yamuna area inparticular and Uttar Pradesh in general. This isapart from the fact that the majority of thepersons whose lands have been acquired, have eithernot objected to it or have accepted thecompensation without any demur. It will, therefore,not be possible for us to go into these individualgrievances, which have been rightly rejected by theHigh Court.35.In fact, in Balbir Singh vs. State of U.P.(CMWP No.48978 of 2008 decided on 05.10.2009), itwas pointed out that out of the 12,315 affectedfarmers in 133 villages over the total area of 1638ha of the Expressway, 11,387 have already receivedcompensation and only 142 farmers have raised theissues. The High Court has rightly held that theprivate interest is always affected to some extent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in such large schemes requiring the acquisition ofland. The High Court has rightly held that aholistic view had to be taken to look for an allround development without forgetting about ourheritage, culture and traditions. We also,therefore, would not entertain the objections,feebly raised before us, individually.45.It has been strongly argued on behalf ofthe State, the Company and YEIDA that the majoractivity of land acquisition process is over. Ithas been noted in Balbir Singh vs. State of U.P.(CMWP No.48978 of 2008 decided on 05.10.2009) thatout of the 12,315 affected farmers in 133 villagesover the total area of 1638 ha of the Expressway,11,387 have already received compensation and only142 farmers out of such a large number of villageshave raised the issues, leaving 139 farmers who hadnot taken the compensation. This is apart from thefact that only 9 writ petitioners came in that writpetition. The story in Nand Kishore Gupta vs. Stateof U.P. (CMWP No.31314 of 2009 decided on30.11.2009) writ petition which was disposed of bythe High Court along with other writ petitions isno different.46.The learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellants could not deny the fact that thetotal number of petitioners concerned in theseacquisition proceedings, coming up before the HighCourt, was extremely insignificant as compared tothose who had accepted the compensation. Of course,that by itself may not be the only reason to holdagainst the appellants (the petitioners), however,that fact will have to be kept in mind whiledeciding the issues which cover the wholeacquisition process, which acquisition is for thepurpose of development of 25 million sq m of land.The High Court has also noticed this aspect. Wehave mentioned this aspect only with a limitedobjective of showing that the criticism against thewhole scheme which would invalidate the acquisitionwould be difficult to be accepted, particularly inthis case, in view of the fact that majority of thelandowners have parted with possession, taken thecompensation and thus, the whole scheme hasprogressed to a substantial level, wherefrom itwill be extremely difficult now to turn back tosquare one." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

36.Hence, in view of the categorical pronouncement of theHonourable Apex Court and considering the overwhelming public interest,as against the private interest of the petitioner and the limitedpublic interest of running a hospital, this Court is of the view thatthe Writ Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings will have to berejected.Alternative plea:-37.An alternative request has been made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by him and also in thewritten submissions that in the event of this Court coming to theconclusion, a direction will have to be issued to the respondents toconsider the request for an alternative site. The learned counselsubmitted that considering the public interest involved and theprocedural irregularities committed by the respondents, a suitabledirection will have to be given.38.This Court finds considerable force in the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, thepetitioner has been running a hospital with Pharmacy and living in aresidential house. The question as to whether a hospital is having anelement of public purpose, has been considered by the Honourable ApexCourt in COLLECTOR, 24 PARGANAS vs. LALIT MOHAN MULLICK [AIR 1986 SC622] which has been extracted hereunder:"12. .......... The respondents can succeedonly if they can establish to the satisfaction ofthe Court that putting up of a hospital forcrippled children is not a public purpose connectedwith the rehabilitation of displaced persons. Toour pointed question to the respondent's counselwhether the construction of a hospital for crippledchildren is a public purpose or not he admitted,after some hesitation, that it was a publicpurpose. The next step is to ascertain whetherputting up of such a hospital has something to dowith rehabilitation of displaced persons.13.In Collins Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, the meaning for the word 'rehabilitate'is given as "to help a person (who is physically ormentally disabled or has just been released fromprison) to readapt to society or a new job as byvocational guidance, retraining or thereby ....".By rehabilitation what is means is not to provideshelter alone. The real purpose of rehabilitationcan be achieved only if those who are sought to berehabilitated are provided with shelter, food and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other necessary amenities of life. It would be toomuch to contend, much less to accept, thatproviding medical facilities would not come withinthe concept of the word 'rehabilitation'. Nodetailed discussion is necessary to hold thatputting up of a hospital and in particulars oneputting up of a hospital and in particular one forcrippled children is one of the important facets ofthe concept of 'rehabilitation of displacedpersons'."39.Therefore, considering the ratio laid down by theHonourable Apex Court, this Court is of the view that an element ofpublic purpose is involved in running a hospital. 40.Considering the scope of judicial discretion in issuingdirections, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in T.RAMARAJvs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [AIR 1994 MADRAS 313] in the following manner:"8.The above analysis of the case based on thejudgments of this Court as well as the apex Courtposes a moot point, as to whether the selection ofthe petitioner's site for the development of theneighborhood scheme was proper and justified, I amof the opinion that I must follow the lastmentioned Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab:Vs: Gurdial Singh. AIR 1980 SC 319, which has verylucidly pointed out the scope of the Court's powerto interfere with the decision of the Government.At the same time, I must record that therespondents have not done justice to the petitionerwho is an ex-serviceman. The only way of balancingthe rights of parties, is to give appropriatedirections to the Government while upholding theacquisition proceedings ............. I am notwilling to accept the last claim of therespondents, because --- 5A report, which I haveextracted above shows that the petitioner referredto the construction and no attempt was made by theLand Acquisition Officer to verify the correctnessof the same. For the above reasons, I propose togive the following directions in the Writ Petition.(i) The notification under Section 4(1) andthe Declaration under Section 6 impugned in thisWrit Petition are upheld:(ii) The Writ Petitioner should not bedispossessed of the land and the house in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possession unless and until the governmentspecifically considers, whether the subject sitealone can be exempted from the acquisitionproceedings:(iii) For this purpose of the Governmentconsidering the claim for exemption, I direct thepetitioner to file an application to theGovernment, within three weeks from today. If suchan application is filed, the Government is directedto consider and pass orders, in the light of theobservations contained in this judgment.(iv) The Government while considering theclaim for exemption can also suggest thealternative site with adequate compensation. Tillthe Government takes a final decision on theapplication for exemption, the petitioner shall notbe disturbed from the subject site in which he hasalready built a house. The writ petition is orderedin the above terms. There will be no order as tocosts."41.This Court in THIRUVENGADAM, R. vs. SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, MADRAS – 9[1997 (II) CTC 323] while holding that the objections cannot beoverruled mechanically, was pleased to give a direction that a dwellinghouse will have to be excluded.42.The Honourable Apex Court while setting aside the judgmentof the Division Bench of the Haryana High Court in JAGDISH CHAND ANDANOTHER vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [(2005) 10 SCC 162] hasobserved as follows:"8......1.The Secretary, Urban Estates Department,State of Haryana is directed to consider theobjections of the appellants only so far it relatesto exclusion of the land to the extent occupied bythe structure and appropriate open area around thestructure for the beneficial enjoyment of theappellants. However, this direction shall not comein the way of the authorities in removing thestructures, if required to the purposes of road,hospital and other civic amenities.2.The Secretary, Urban Estates Departmentshall decide not only the existence of thestructures prior to Section 4(1) notification orsubsequent to, he shall also decide the extent ofstructure which existed prior to Section 4(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notification.3.It is also open to the authorities to makeadjustment or readjustment of plots for the purposeof planned development and in case it becomesnecessary to give a little additional area from theplots to the appellants, the appellants shall bebound to take that additional area and also bebound to pay cost of such area as is chargeable toother allottees. The appellants shall also be boundto pay the developmental charges as is charged fromother allottees. It is open to the parties to placedocuments or material in support of theircontentions.8.We except that as far as possible, therespondents shall try to retain the structures,unless it becomes difficult for them to have aplanned development without removing them in viewof what is stated above."43.It is further to be seen that as per the revisedfeasibility report, particularly in para 9.6, there is availability oflands for sale. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted thatutilization of any excess land is a matter to be decided in future. Bethat as it may, considering the peculiar facts of the case, coupledwith the fact that the petitioner has been agitating her rights, whichnot only involved her private interest, but also a public interest,this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where discretion can beexercised by issuing certain directions to the respondents.44.Accordingly, (i) the petitioner herein is directed to givea detailed representation placing all the materials available withher before the respondents, namely, respondents 1 and 2, seekingeither exclusion of the lands acquired or for allotment ofalternative site.(ii)The said representation will have to be made within a periodof two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iii)After the receipt of the said representation to be given bythe petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider either therelease of the land in favour of the petitioner or alternativeaccommodation.(iv)The respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same within aperiod of eight (8) weeks from the date of the saidrepresentation.(v)If the respondents proceed with plan 2, then the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ request for exclusion need not be considered and in that event,her request for alternative site alone can be considered. Therespondents 1 and 2 shall consider the request for alternativesite as per the guidelines, rules and regulations.(vi)Considering the fact that the project has just commenced andconsidering the further fact that the petitioner has been runningthe Hospital till now, the petitioner's possession shall not bedisturbed till appropriate orders are passed by the respondents 1and 2.(vii)The directions issued by this Court need not be followed bythe respondents 1 and 2, if the petitioner does not make anyrepresentation, within the time limit granted by this Court and inthat event, it is open to the respondents to proceed in accordancewith law.45.The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarsriTo1.Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.2.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.3.The District Collector Thiruvallur District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The District Revenue Officer (L.A.) CMDA, Egmore Chennai – 600 008.5.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) ORR Unit – IV CMDA, Egmore Chennai – 600 008.+1cc to Mr.I.Paranthamen,Advocate SR 27979+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 28011+2ccs to Mr.C.Franco Lauis, Advocate Sr 27697RSI(CO)km/2.5.W.P. NOS.9784 & 9785 OF 2002