IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:-05-10-2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.Nos.10277 to 10279 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 V.Nandakumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.10277 of 2009 V.Raji ... Petitioner in W.P.No.10278 of 2009 V.Vinayagam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.10279 of 2009 Versus 1. Union of India rep.by its Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi 2. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India No.8, 29th Cross Street, Indira Nagaar Adyar, Chennai 20 3. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways Project Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District Kancheepuram. 4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acqusition) National Highways Project Poonamallee, Chennai 56. ... Respondents in all WPs Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.10277 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nos.14/3A2 part and 14/4A1 measuring an extent of 1150 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. Writ Petition in W.P.No.10278 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey No.14/4B2 measuring an extent of 550 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. Writ Petition in W.P.No.10279 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in SO No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey Nos.86/1A2 part and 14/4C2 measuring an extent of 800 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. For Petitioner :- Mr.David Tyagaraj For Respondents :- Mr. P.Wilson Additional Advocate General (R1&R2) Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Govt.Advocate (R3&R4) O R D E R These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notifications made under Sections 3-A(1) and 3-D(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. 2. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 3. The notification was challenged on the following grounds:- (i) Section 3-A (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. 4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:- (i) The contentions that Section 3-A 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. 5. 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. 6. The first and foremost submission that was made on behalf of the petitioners, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Section 3-A(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. 7. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 3-A of the Act was not violated while issuing notification. 8. 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 3-A of the Act. 3-A 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. 9. Section 3-A (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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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." 10. 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. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this connection relied on the decision in COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY (2006(1) LACC 252). More emphasis was made in para 9 which is reproduced hereunder:- 9. The absence of plan also renders the right to file objections under Section 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 under Section 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 & Others (1999) 7 SCC 44. (1999 LACC SC. 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 under Section 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 under Section 3C, therefore, cannot non-suit the writ petitioners in this case. 12. However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent has relied on the decision in THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR V. SRIDEVI (2006 (5) CTC 634). More emphasis was made in para 6, which is reproduced hereunder:- 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 3.36 Acres of land of the petitioners as it could be any where on the southern, northern, eastern and western side or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 13. 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. 14. In para 8 of the Division Bench decision of this court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 634 (THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR V. SRIDEVI), 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:- 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. 15. 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 3-A (2) of the Act was not followed by the second respondent while issuing the impugned notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. 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 under Section 3-A 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. 17. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision A.MUTHALIF VS. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, HARIJAN WELFRE, DEVAKAOTTAI AND ANOTHER (1985 IIMLJ 237). That is a case where there was a serious discrepancy between description of the land in the Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 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 under Section 3-A of the Act and the paper publication that was made. 18. 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. 19. Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent contended that since objection was not made under Section 3-C of the Act, it shall be treated that the petitioners have waived their right for raising the objection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned Additional Advocate General placed emphasis on para 52 of the decision in DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. GURDIP SINGH UBAN AND OTHERS (2000 (7) SCC 296) which is usefully extracted hereunder:- "52. In Abhey Ram Vs. Union of India (1997 (5) SCC 421) 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 5-A 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." 20. In the given case also the petitioners have not raised any objection pursuant to the notification made under Section 3-A 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. 21. 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 OTHERS VS. TAHSILDAR, METPALLY, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER) 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 under Section 3A of the Act. 22. Section 3-C 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 under Section 3-C of the Act. It would be useful to extract Section 3-C of the Act and it is extracted hereunder:- 3-C 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 3-A, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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) 23. Having not raised any objection within the prescribed time as contemplated under Section 3-C 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. 24. Section 3(D) of the Act contemplates that if no objection is received as contemplated under Section 3-C 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 3-A. On publication of such declaration, the lands in question will vest with the Central Government. Section 3- D of the Act is extracted hereunder:- 3-D Declaration of acquisition:- (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C 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 3-A. (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 3-A 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A 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." 25. 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 3-G of the Act. As on date, the petitioners were served with Section 3-G 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. 26. In the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the Notification made under Section 3-A dated 13.9.2007 or the declaration made under Section 3-D of the Act dated 18.2.2008. 27. In fine the writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs. 05.10.2009 This Writ Petition NOs.10277 to 10279/09 having been posted on Monday, the Twenty First day of December 2009 for being mentioned subsequent to the order of this Court dated 05.10.2009 and made herein and in the presence of Mr.David Tyagaraj, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General for Respondents 1 and