The General Manager ... v. Mrs. Sridevi, Rep. B...

A.P Shah, C.J

1. Mr. Kirupakaran, learned counsel wives service for the first respondent. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader waives service for respondents 2, 3 and 5. The second respondent is a formal party to the proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the interlocutory order passed in the Writ Petitions. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for hearing along with the Writ Appeals.

4. The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are the co-owners of the property comprised in S. No. 104/2 at Kollambakkam Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, admeasuring 3.36 Acres. The said property has been purchased by the petitioners under two separate sale deeds dated 12.6.2003, each for 1.68 Acres. Out of 3.36 Acres, an area of 0.80 hectares of land has been acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of four laning of National Highways 45 (NH-45) and for constructing a Truck Parking Bay on NH-45. A notification under Section 3-A(i) of the Act was issued on 24.12.2003 and the substance of the notification was published in “The New Indian Express” and “Dinamani” on 28.1.2004 and also displayed in the Taluk Office, Revenue Divisional Office and the Village in question for the information of the public. A period of twenty-one days was given to the landowners to file their objections, if any, but none filed any objection before the competent authority for the land acquisition within the statutory period. Further, when objections were called for as per Section 3-C(2) of the Act, the petitioners have not filed any objections. One T.A Muniyandi filed an objection and after due consideration by the competent authority, the same was rejected. Ultimately, the final notification under Section 3-D(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 14.6.2004 and consequent upon the publication, the land absolutely vested with the Central Government, free from all encumbrances.

5. The legality and validity of the acquisition is questioned by the petitioners in the present Writ Petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that Section 3-A(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 of 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 v. Barangore Jute Factory And Others, 2005 (13) SCC 477.

7. The notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act reads as follows:

“MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Road Wing)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2003

S.O 1462(E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48/1956) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government, after being satisfied that for the public purpose, the land, the brief description of which has been given in the Schedule below, is required for four-laning of Chengalpattu-Tindivanam Section of National Highway No. 45 (from Km 67/0 to Km 104/0) from Palamathur to Thozhupedu in the State of Tamil Nadu, hereby declares its intention to acquire such land;

Any person interested in the land may, within twenty one days from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette, raise objection on the use of the land for the aforesaid purpose;

Every such objection shall be made to the competent authority, namely, the Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur Districts, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector the opportunity of being heard either in person or through legal practitioner and may, after hearing of 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;

Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) of Section 3-C of the said Act shall be final;

The land plans and other details of lands covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the office of the competent authority.

SCHEDULE

Brief description of land required for four laning of Chengalpattu-Tindivanam section of National Highway No. 45 (from Km 67/0 to Km 104/0) in the State of Tamil Nadu.

District: Kancheepuram

Sl. No. Name of the Taluk Name of the Village Survey No. Type of Land Nature of Land Area of land in Hectares … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2 Maduran- takam Kollampa-kkam 104/2 Part Private Dry 0.80.0 … … … … … … …

8. 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.

9. In Bangalore Jute Factory case, cited supra, a part of the land out of a bigger chunk of land was sought to be acquired under the National Highways Act. In that case the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Act, there was no reference to any plan nor any such plan was referred to in the pleadings and nothing was produced before the Court at the hearing. In these circumstances, Arun Kumar, J., speaking for the Bench, observed as follows:

“While dealing with the question of brief description of land in the acquisition notifications, reference was made to some judgments of this Court where acquisition notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had come up for consideration on account of challenge being levelled on the grounds of vagueness of the notifications. In most of the cases, plan of the area under acquisition was made part of the notifications to show that the requirement of description of land was met. This leads us to inquire whether there was any site plan forming part of the impugned plan.

The availability of a plan would have made all the difference. If there is a plan, the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately. The question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of brief description of land under Section 3-A(2) goes to the root of the matter. The High Court rightly observed: ‘…..It is just not possible to proceed to determine the necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of land without preparation of a proper plan.’ The appendix to the impugned notification shows that in many cases small parts of larger chunks of land have been notified for acquisition. This is not possible without preparing a plan. But where is the plan? The notification in question makes no reference to any plan. Our attention was drawn to averments in pleadings by the Writ Petitioners and replies thereto of the acquiring authority. The Writ Petitioners have pleaded that there was no plan. Replies are vague and by way of rolled-up answers. There is no specific reply. It is obvious that there was no plan and, therefore, none was referred to in the pleadings nor anything was produced before the Court at the hearing. Learned counsel for the competent authority tried to submit before us that there was a plan at the time of issue of the notification and the Writ Petitioners ought to have inspected it, if they so desired. He further submitted that the plan was produced before the High Court. We find that both these submissions are not sustainable as they are not correct. A reference to the impugned notification shows that there is no mention of any plan. Without this how can anybody know that there was a plan which could be inspected and inspected where? We are inclined to accept that there was no plan accompanying the impugned notification. During the course of hearing we were shown a plan which we are unable to link with the impugned notification. This was a 1996 PWD plan. PWD is a department of the State Government. The impugned notification is by the Central Government. NHAI is established under a Central Act. The competent authority under Section 3 of the Act is appointed by the Central Government. Therefore, this State Government plan of 1996 (the impugned notification is of 1998) is of no assistance. The impugned judgment of the High Court emphasises the need for a plan. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that no plan was produced before it. The absence of any reference to a plan in the impugned notification and in fact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies the argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the impugned notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders the notification invalid.” (emphasis supplied)

10. In the case in hand, the impugned notification specifically refers the land plan and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was non-compliance of Section 3-A(2) of the Act cannot be accepted.

11. In the result, the Writ Petitions fails and, accordingly, they are dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.

12. Learned Additional Solicitor General makes a statement that compensation of the acquired land would be paid to the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event not later than a period of three months from today.

13. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petitions, no orders are necessary in the Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are, therefore, closed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.