TN Highways Act - Non-Filing Of Answer To Objections By Department Shall Not Vitiate Entire Acquisition Process: SC
The Supreme Court has observed that non-filing of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing of the copy of the same to the land owners shall not vitiate the entire land acquisition process and/or notification issued under subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
"…non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001.", the Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed.
The facts of the case were that the lands owned by the petitioner herein – original land owner were required to construct Grade Separators for the purpose of constructing a Flyover and Subway. The said lands were acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
A notice under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2001 was issued inviting objections of owners and any other person having interest in the lands to be acquired to show cause as to why the lands may not be acquired.
The petitioner herein – original land owner submitted his detailed objections and the notices were also sent to the highways authorities/department of the division concerned.
According to the State, after considering the objections raised by the original land owner on the report submitted by the highways authorities, a notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 was issued.
Being aggrieved with the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001, the original land owners filed writ petitions before the High Court contending, interalia, that the said notification is in violation of the procedure to be followed under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.
The original writ petitioner had contended that without waiting for the response from the Highways Department and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the objectors, the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been issued, which was in violation of Rule 5 of Rules, 2003.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition while holding that there was substantial compliance and there is no illegality committed in issuing the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001.
Upon an appeal against this decision, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal.
Aggrieved, original landowners approached Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate, Huzefa A. Ahmadi, appeared on behalf of the petitioner-original land owner.
The Supreme Court observed that sub-rule (2) Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highway Rules 2003 states that Highways Department may file a statement by way of answer to the objections which is not a mandatory requirement.
"The object and purpose of subrule (2) of Rule 5 seems to be to give an opportunity to the Highways Department also to meet with the objections raised by the land owners and so as to give an opportunity to the Highways Department to put forward their case. It further provides that the Highways Department may file a statement by way of answer to the objections. It is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the Highways Department may or may not file a statement by way of answer to the objections.", the Court noted.
The Court emphasized that non-filing of the statement by highways department will not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001.
The Court noted that full opportunity was given to the original land owner to submit their objections before issuance of notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001.
The Court further noted that "…before issuing the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001, a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department was before the authority and thereafter the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been issued. Therefore, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court was right in observing that there is a substantial compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 and no interference of the Court is called for."
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
Cause Title- M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
