AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Venkataraman, J.—These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notifications made under Sections 3A(1) and 3D(1) of the
National Highways Act 1956 dated 13.9.2007 and 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey Nos. 14/3A2 part, 14/4A1, 14/4B2, 86/1A2 and
14/4C2 at No. 71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk in Thiruvallur District.
The short facts, which led the petitioners to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions as put forth by them in their affidavits in support of
these writ petitions in nutshell is stated hereunder:
Their father one Vembuli Naicker had purchased certain properties including the properties in question. He died on 9.2.1995 and they have
partitioned the said properties among themselves along with their sisters on 21.5.1997. In and by the said partition they have been allotted separate
properties. Certain properties which have been allotted to them were sought to be acquired and a notification was issued by the respondents dated
13.9.2007 under the National Highways Act and the same was also published. Challenging the same, the petitioners have approached this Court
by filing the present writ petitions.
The notification was challenged on the following grounds:
(i) Section 3A(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) contemplates a brief description of the land in the notification.
Since the said brief description of the land does not find in the notification, the notification is liable to be set aside.
(ii) There are discrepancies in the notification and in the paper publication. Therefore, the notification is liable to be set aside.
(iii) If the land is sought to be acquired and if there is a flaw, in the notification it shall be always in favour of the land owners.
Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:
(i) The contentions that Section 3A was not followed and there is no clarity in the Gazette Notification with reference to the lands in the schedule
enclosed are denied.
(ii) The allegation in this respect is vague and cannot be entertained.
(iii) The respondents have duly followed the procedure as contemplated under the National Highways Act 1956 and the Gazette Notification is
issued as contemplated under the Act.
(iv) Sufficient opportunity was given for raising objection as contemplated under the Act.
(v) There is no violation of principles of natural justice in the land acquisition proceedings.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second
respondent as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 have made their submissions based on the
pleadings referred to above.
The first and foremost submission that was made on behalf of the petitioners, by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Section
3A(2) of the Act contemplates a brief description of the land. Since the said description does not find place in the notification, the notification made
under the Act is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent contended that whatever particulars
that is required had been stated in brief description in the notification. Further, according to the learned Additional Advocate General in the said
notification itself it is made very clear that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be
inspected by the interested persons at the office of the competent authority. Hence, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the
provisions of Section 3A of the Act was not violated while issuing notification.
Before considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the second respondent, it would be useful to extract Section 3A of the Act.
3A 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.
Section 3A(2) of the Act clearly says that every notification under Sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. If we look at the
notification that was issued by the second respondent dated 13.9.2007, in the schedule, brief description of the land has been set out which is
extracted hereunder:
Brief description of the land to be acquired, with or without structure falling within the stretch of land for Chennai Bypass Phase II connecting
National Highway No. 4 and National Highway No. 5 and widening of Chennai Bypass (Phase I) connecting National Highway No. 45 and
National Highway No. 4 in Vanagaram and Nolambur Villages of Thiruvallur District, in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Sl. Name of Name of Name of Survey Type of Nature Area (in
No District the Taluk the village Number land of land square
meters Thiruvallur Ambattur (1) 302/1B Pt. Private
Manavari 820 Nolambur
(2) 58/2A Pt. Private Dry 200
Vanagaram 59/1A Pt. Private Dry 200
59/2A1 Pt. Private Dry 200
62 Pt. Private Dry 150
63/2A Pt. Private Dry 80
313/1 Pt. Private Dry 250
314/1 Pt. Private Dry 250
315/1A Pt. Private Dry 250
315/2C Pt. Private Dry 250
82/2A Pt. Private Dry 80
86/1A Pt. Private Dry 700
87/1A Pt. Private Dry 300
14/3A Pt. Private Dry 1100
14/4A Pt. Private Dry 900
Further more in the said notification it is clearly stated as follows:
The land plans and other details of the land covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the
aforesaid office of the competent authority.
Thus, the notification issued which is under challenge, contains the brief description of the land, which is sought to be acquired and also it
clearly sets out that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available with the competent authority and can be
inspected by the interested persons before the competent authority.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in this connection relied on the decision in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory
2006 (1) LACC 252. More emphasis was made in para 9 which is reproduced hereunder:
The absence of plan also renders the right to file objections u/s 3C(1) nugatory. In the absence of plan; it is impossible to ascertain or know
which part of 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 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land u/s 4 of the said
Act, Section 3C(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 Sub-section 3A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the
argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the NHAI that failure to file objections disentitles 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 Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others etc., . In our view, this judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where
right to object is very limited. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition
of land u/s 5A. 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. Failure to file objection to the
notification u/s 3C, therefore, cannot non-suit the writ petitioners in this case.
However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent has relied on the decision in The General Manager
(Tech.) and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Vs. Mrs. Sridevi rep. by her Power of Attorney Saibabu and Others, . More
emphasis was made in para 6, which is reproduced hereunder:
Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that Section 3A(1) of the Act enjoins the competent authority to give a brief
description of the land which is sought to be acquired in the notification. Learned Counsel submitted that for the purpose of giving a brief
description of the land sought to be acquired the person whose land is to be taken away should at least know what he is being deprived of. This
becomes all the more necessary when only a part of the land out of a bigger chunk of land is sought to be acquired. Learned Counsel submitted
that out of the total extent of 3.36 acres of land, only a part comprising of 0.80 Hectares is sought to be acquired by the impugned notification. The
question will naturally arise as to the what is the exact location of this 0.80 Hectares of land out of the larger extent 3.36 Acres of land of the
petitioners as it could be any where on the southern, northern, eastern and western side or even in the middle. According to the learned Counsel,
the petitioners in the absence of information as to exactly which part of the petitioners'' land is sought to be acquired, makes the description of the
land in the notification insufficient rather vague. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Others, .
A combined reading of the judgment referred to above will clearly establish a brief description of the property in the notification alone is
sufficient. In the given case on hand in the schedule to the notification brief description of the land which is sought to be acquired has been clearly
set out. The schedule which has been extracted above will amply prove that the particulars thereunder is sufficient to raise an objection for
acquisition of the lands in question. Further more, as stated already it is clearly set out in the notification that the land plans and other details of the
land, which are necessary can be ascertained from the competent authority.
In para 8 of the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in The General Manager (Tech.) and Project Director, National Highways
Authority of India Vs. Mrs. Sridevi rep. by her Power of Attorney Saibabu and Others, , it is clearly stated that when the notification speaks about
the plans and 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 that itself is sufficient. Para 8 of the said decision of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder:
The notification specifically mentions that the plans 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.
In view of the above stated position I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section
3A(2) of the Act was not followed by the second respondent while issuing the impugned notification.
The next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there are discrepancies in the survey numbers and the extent of
the property to be acquired. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the notification u/s 3A of the Act it is stated that in respect of
Survey No. 14/3A part 1100 sq. metre and in respect of S.No. 14/4A part 900 sq. metre are sought to be acquired whereas in the paper
publication though the extent of the property sought to be acquired in respect of S.No. 14/3A2 is correctly stated in respect of S.No. 14/4A1
though it is stated in the notification 900 sq.metre, however, in the paper publication it is stated only 50 sq.metre. Thus, according to the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, there are discrepancies in the notification as well as the paper publication and hence the impugned
notification is liable to be set aside.
In this connection, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision A. Muthalif v. The special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfre,
Devakaottai and Anr. 1985 IIMLJ 237. That is a case where there was a serious discrepancy between description of the land in the Notification
u/s 4(1) and Declaration u/s 6 and such discrepancy has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were quashed
by the Division Bench. However, in the case on hand the following particulars have been given in the notification.
14/3A Pt. Private Dry 1100 sq.metres
14/4A Pt. Private Dry 900 sq.metres
In the paper publication, the following particulars have been given:
14/3A2 Dry Private 1100 sq.metres
14/4A1 Dry Private 50 sq.metres
14/4B2 Dry Private 550 sq.metres
14/4C2 Dry Private 250 sq.metres
Thus, I find no material discrepancies between the notification issued u/s 3A of the Act and the paper publication that was made.
In view of the above stated position, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there
are discrepancies between the notification and the paper publication.
Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent contended that since objection was not made
u/s 3C of the Act, it shall be treated that the petitioners have waived their right for raising the objection. The learned Additional Advocate General
placed emphasis on para 52 of the decision in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
In Abhey Ram (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Union of India and others, as well as in the judgment in the civil appeals, it has been clearly
stated that those claimants who have not filed objections to the Section 4 Notification cannot be permitted to contend before the Court that
Section 5A inquiry is vitiated so far as they are concerned. Nor can they be permitted to seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground.
We shall elaborate this aspect further.
In the given case also the petitioners have not raised any objection pursuant to the notification made u/s 3A of the Act and hence they cannot
be now heard to say that they have not been given an opportunity to point out about the discrepancies.
Yet another contention that has been put forth by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that if the land is sought to be acquired
and if there is a flaw in the notification it shall be in favour of the land owner. In support of the said proposition the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners relied on the decision reported in 1983 1 AWR 354 (Kammarapalli Gangaram and Ors. v. Tahsildar, Metpally, Karimnagar District
and Anr.) Absolutely, there cannot be quarrel over the said proposition. In the matter in issue, as stated earlier, absolutely there is no flaws in the
notification made u/s 3A of the Act.
Section 3C of the Act clearly says that any person interested in the land may within twenty one days from the date of publication of the
notification raise an objection. In the given case on hand the petitioners have not raised any objection within twenty one days as contemplated u/s
3C of the Act. It would be useful to extract Section 3C of the Act and it is extracted hereunder:
3C Hearing of Objection - (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 3A, 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.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, ""legal practitioner"" has the same meaning as in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)
Having not raised any objection within the prescribed time as contemplated u/s 3C of the Act, now the petitioners cannot be heard to say at
this stage that there is a flaw in the notification and that there are discrepancies in the survey numbers and the extent of the property between the
notification and the paper publication.
Section 3D of the Act contemplates that if no objection is received as contemplated u/s 3C of the Act or where the competent authority
disallowed the objections raised for acquisition of the land, a report shall be submitted to the Central Government and on such report, the Central
Government shall declare by notification in the official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Sub-
section (1) of Section 3A. On publication of such declaration, the lands in question will vest with the Central Government. Section 3D of the Act is
extracted hereunder:
3D Declaration of acquisition:- (1) Where no objection under Sub-section (1) of Section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the
period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under Sub-section (2) of that section, the competent
authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government
shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Sub-section (1) of
Section 3A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under Sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under Sub-section (1) of Section 3A for its acquisition but no declaration under
Sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to
have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of
the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3A is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under Sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, such declaration was made by the Central Government on 18.2.2008. When once the lands vests with the
Central Government the petitioners will be entitled only for a compensation and the same will be deposited as per Section 3G of the Act. As on
date, the petitioners were served with Section 3G notice and it is for them to agitate the matter before the authorities for determining the
compensation payable to their lands which is sought to be acquired and which now vests with the Central Government.
In the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the Notification made u/s 3A dated 13.9.2007 or the declaration made
u/s 3D of the Act dated 18.2.2008.
In fine the writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.