1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.2412 of 2011 K.Nagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Project Director, National Highway Department, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition-National Highways, No.299-A1A2-3rd Middle Street, Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.J3/14/2010, dated 04.01.2011 by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to acquire the petitioners dry land instead of the yielding land already acquired in S.Nos.593/3, 594/8, 596/3-B, 596/4, 604/4C and 601/1 of Thovalai Village, Kanyakumari District. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan for R-1 Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. For R-2 ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 4.1.2011 issued by the Authorized officer-cum- Special District Revenue Officer, National Highways, i.e., the second respondent.. 2.The petitioner's land was sought to be acquired after following the procedure under the National Highways Act. The lands of the petitioner were acquired for formation of National Highway No.47B proceeding from Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru. The land was situated in Thovalai village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner had objected to the acquisition of land and that objection was overruled by the second respondent in terms of Section 3C(2). It was stated that the formation of the Highways is nationally important. Hence the formation of National Highways in a particular route is finalised by the Government and hence, the project cannot be changed. In view of the formation of Four Lane traffic, it is essential for the land to be acquired and it cannot be avoided. 3.The contention of the petitioner was that it was bad in law and the second respondent must be directed to acquire the dry land instead of cultivable land. 4.When the matter came up on 2.3.2011, this court had ordered notice of motion. On notice from this court, the Project Director, National https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Highways Authority of India has filed a counter affidavit, dated 31.5.2011. In the counter affidavit, the reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner was set out. In paragraphs 11 and 14(b), it was stated as follows: “11....it is submitted that the work of preparation of Detailed Project Report for this project was entrusted with M/s.SECON Private Limited, Bangalore in the year 2004. The alignment for the proposed road was prepared between 2005-2006. The consultant has submitted Final Detailed Project Report during April 2008. During the above period, the surveyor of the consultant has visited the location and therefore the petitioner has wrongly concluded that some portions of his lands were acquired for National Highways. It is submitted that the lands required for this project have been notified u/s 3A of NH Act 48/1956. The 2nd respondent (Special District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli) who is the competent authority for Land Acquisition has properly conducted enquiry u/s 3C of the NH Act and over ruled the objection of the petitioner in his proceedings No.J3/14/2010, dated 04.01.2011 as the lands of the petitioner are essentially required for the formation of the National Highways and it is for the public purpose. 14(b)...it is submitted that road alignment has been finalized based on the requirement of the relevant codes (Indian Road Congress & Ministry of Road Transport Highways) for design speed of 100 km/ph. Therefore the land actually required for the road based on finalized alingnment is being acquired irrespective of the type of land (I.e.) wet, dry etc.” 5.When similar contentions were raised regarding realigning the National Highways, the matter was dealt with by the division bench of this court in R.Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 384, and it was observed that it is for the authorities to decide the matter. 6.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SUB SUB ASST REGISTRAR vvk To 1.The Project Director, National Highway Department, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition-National Highways, No.299-A1A2-3rd Middle Street,Thiyagaraja Nagar, Tirunelveli. 1cc to Mr.C.Sankar Prakash, Advocate ( SR 36302 ) 1cc to Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Advocte (SR No.36016) 1cc to Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (SR No.36092 ) SB:03/11/2011 2p 5c W.P.(MD)NO.2412 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/