Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2246 (MAD)

American College v. State of Tamil Nadu

2024-09-10

P.T.ASHA

body2024
ORDER : Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the acquisition notification issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated Na.Ka.No. 155/2023/SH-1 dated 24.07.2024 issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 and quash the same as illegal. 1. The Writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the acquisition notification issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated Na.Ka.No. 155/2023/S.H-1 dated 24.07.2024 issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. 2. The petitioner’s case is as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is a reputed college in the southern District of Tamil Nadu and has been in existence for over 130 years. The college was established in the year 1881 by the Christian Minority Missionaries (called the American Mission) in the same year, when the prestigious St. Stephen College, New Delhi was established. The building of the college which is constructed in an Anglo Saxon style is a heritage building. The college is an autonomous college and offers 47 under graduate courses, 21 post graduate courses and 9 Research Departments. In and around 12000 students are pursuing their education in various courses in the petitioner college. 2.2. The college is situate right in the heart of the Madurai city and the campus is about 45 acres. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would indicate that earlier on 15.02.2018, a notification under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai expressing an intent to put up a fly over bridge, for which purpose the land of the petitioner comprised in T.S. Nos. 10, 14, 15, 16 and 1 were sought to be acquired. Since the notification has been issued by an authority who did not have jurisdiction, the petitioner had moved W.P. (MD) Nos. 6062 to 6268 of 2018 questioning the acquisition. The grievance of the petitioner on jurisdiction was that it was only the State Government that was competent to issue a notice under Section 15(2) of the Act. Since the notification has been issued by an authority who did not have jurisdiction, the petitioner had moved W.P. (MD) Nos. 6062 to 6268 of 2018 questioning the acquisition. The grievance of the petitioner on jurisdiction was that it was only the State Government that was competent to issue a notice under Section 15(2) of the Act. After the filing of the writ petitions, the notification under Section 15(2) was withdrawn the therefore by recording the same the Writs were dismissed by orders of Court dated 04.04.2018. The Court did not grant liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notice. 2.3. However, on 17.04.2018 yet another notification under Section 15(2) of the Act was issued. Once again, the writ petitioner has challenged the said notice in W.P. (MD) Nos. 12847 to 12853 of 2018 by contending that in the earlier writ petition no liberty was obtained and therefore the notification issued without liberty has to be quashed. That apart, the petitioner had also contended that the public notice issued under Section 15(2) and the private notice issued under the same section had been issued by different authorities. By orders of Court dated 13.12.2018, the notification came to be quashed. 2.4. Thereafter, the District Revenue Officer issued a notification dated 13.11.2021 under Section 15(2) of the Act, once again expressing the intent to acquire the lands of the petitioner for constructing a fly over bridge. The petitioner had once again challenged the same by filing W.P. (MD) No. 22409 of 2021 by contending that the authority who issued the notification did not have the jurisdiction and the provisions of Section 8 Rule 5 of the Act have not been followed. However, by an order dated 21.12.2021 the writ petition was dismissed as premature and liberty was given to the petitioner to raise necessary objections to the notification and the respondents therein were directed to consider the same. 2.5. Thereafter, on 25.02.2022, a notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was issued stating that the Government was satisfied that a total extent of 3759.5 meters was required for constructing the fly over at Goripalayam which included the petitioner’s land comprised in T.S. Nos. 1, 10 and 14 to 16. This notification was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner. On 15.06.2023, Award No. 5 of 2023 was passed determining the compensation payable to the petitioner college. 1, 10 and 14 to 16. This notification was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner. On 15.06.2023, Award No. 5 of 2023 was passed determining the compensation payable to the petitioner college. By a notice dated 08.08.2023, the 4th respondent stated that the land which forms part of the notification dated 25.02.2022 issued under Section 15(1) of the Act stood vested with the State Government and the petitioner was directed to produce relevant document to claim compensation. Thereafter, the officials of the respondents had come into the petitioner’s land and had earmarked certain extent of land which was more than the extent specified in Section 15(1) notification. Therefore, the petitioner on 08.08.2023 and 15.11.2023 requested the 4th respondent to measure and survey the land in tune with notification dated 25.02.2022. However, this request was not heeded to constraining the petitioner to file a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 27805 of 2023. When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 24.11.2023, the learned Additional Advocate General had made a submission before the Court that only 742 Sq. mt. of the petitioner’s land was proposed to be acquired and that the lands up to the platform situate in front of the shops belonging to the petitioner and some name boards alone would be the subject matter of acquisition and that the shops would not be demolished. On the basis of this submission, the writ petition was disposed of. 2.6. However, contrary to the assurance given to the Court, on 13.01.2024, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways) Construction and Maintenance, Madurai had issued a notice to the owners/occupiers of the various shops directing them to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the shops on or before 06.02.2024 invoking the provisions of Section 28(2)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner had challenged this notice by filing W.P. (MD) No. 3129 of 2024 and when the matter came up for hearing on 13.02.2024, the learned Judge directed the Special Surveyor Highways Department along with the Head Surveyor, Madurai Corporation to measure the exact land which is proposed to be acquired as per the notification dated 13.11.2021 in the presence of both the parties. After the survey was conducted they had opined that there was no necessity to vacate the shops. On 24.04.2024, the writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to remit the compensation to the petitioner. After the survey was conducted they had opined that there was no necessity to vacate the shops. On 24.04.2024, the writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to remit the compensation to the petitioner. However, to date, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner which constrained the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition (MD) No. 1498 of 2024 and the same is pending. 2.7. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent had published the impugned public notice dated 19.07.2024 in the local newspaper viz. Dinamalar dated 24.07.2024. This notice was issued under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act and it detailed that the Government proposed to acquire additional lands for the purpose of laying the highways road and calling for objections. Besides other lands, the following lands of the petitioner was sought to be acquired; (i) S. No. 1 to an extent of 704.9 sq. mt. (ii) S. No. 10, to an extent of 999 sq. mt. (iii) S. No. 15 to an extent of 1012.5 sq. mt. and S. No. 16 to an extent of 284 sq. mt. 2.8. The petitioner has questioned the impugned notification dated 24.07.2024 on the following grounds: (i) Private notice has not been issued which is a pre-requisite and which has to be simultaneously issued along with the publication under Section 15(2) of the Act. (ii) Power under Section 15(2) of the Act can only be exercised only if land is required for the purpose of constructing Highways. (iii) Section 2 (12) of the Act defines Highways as one declared so under Section 3 of the Act. (iv) Before issuing notice under Section 15(2) of the Act, the Highways boundaries has to be fixed under Section 8 of the Act. 2.9. The petitioner would rely upon the judgment reported in Cee Deeyes Standndard Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Chennai, 2013 (1) CWC 425 and an un-reported judgment of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 2129 of 2012 R. Moorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in support of the argument that notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act without following the provisions of Section 8 of the Act is illegal. 2.10. The competent authority should be a Judicial Officer (though this ground was raised, arguments have not been made with reference to the same). State of Tamil Nadu in support of the argument that notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act without following the provisions of Section 8 of the Act is illegal. 2.10. The competent authority should be a Judicial Officer (though this ground was raised, arguments have not been made with reference to the same). Therefore, the petitioner sought to quash the notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 24.07.2024 through the grant of a writ of Certiorari. 3. The 1st respondent had filed a counter inter-alia denying the allegations raised in the petition. The 1st respondent would describe the proposed construction of the of bridge at Goripalayam. They would submit that the Goripalayam Junction road has three arms. The main arm of this bridge starts near Thamukkam ground which passes through Devar Statue and ends at Meenakashi Womens College from where it continues further to cross the Vaigai River as a High Level Bridge and lands at Simmakal. Another arm splits from the main arm near Devar Statue and lands near the Thiruvapudaiyar Temple in Sellur side. The 3rd arm has not been described in the counter. However, the 1st respondent would submit that on the left side of the road between the American College and Devar Statue, the traffic had been closed from 01.07.2024 and the pile work is in progress. 4. The 1st respondent would submit that originally, an extent of 3742.50 sq. mt of land was proposed to be acquired and the same was published under Section 15(1) of the Act. It was also handed over to the Highways Department. The amount of compensation has also been deposited to the Revenue Department. The need was felt to form a service road on either side of the bridge for which additional land was to be acquired. A publication under Section 15(2) of the Act was published on 24.07.2024. For this purpose, a total extent of 10909.80 sq. mt. was proposed to be acquired and in the public notice it has been clearly stated that an enquiry was going to be held in the District Collector’s office, Madurai on 23.08.2024 and persons objecting could raise their objections during the enquiry meeting. Without submitting his objections and attending the meeting, the petitioner has rushed to the Court. 5. mt. was proposed to be acquired and in the public notice it has been clearly stated that an enquiry was going to be held in the District Collector’s office, Madurai on 23.08.2024 and persons objecting could raise their objections during the enquiry meeting. Without submitting his objections and attending the meeting, the petitioner has rushed to the Court. 5. The 1st respondent would submit that the respondent department is taking strenuous efforts to implement this project by taking into account the plight of the general public. After obtaining administrative sanction land acquisition proceedings had been initiated way back in the year 2018 itself. The 1st respondent would counter the judgments submitted by the petitioner in Cee Deeyes Standard Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Chennai, 2013 (1) CWC 425 and the judgment in W.P. (MD) No. 2129 of 2012 R. Moorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by relying upon a Division Bench judgment reported in R. Kumar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Fort St. George and Others, 2006 (4) CTC 640 . 6. The 1st respondent would submit that the proceedings under Section 8 and Section 15 of the Act are totally different and therefore the acquisition contemplated under Section 15 of the Act does not require to be preceded by a notification under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 comes under Chapter III of the Act which deals with restriction of ribbon development and Section 15 comes under Chapter IV of the Act which deals with acquisition of land. They would contend that there is no mandate requiring action under Section 8 of the Act to be initiated prior to taking proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act. The 1st respondent in short would submit that private need has to give way for a larger public need. 7. The 1st respondent would submit that an acquisition has to be first made before the development and therefore if Section 8 of the Act has to be interpreted and meant that only after hearing parties notification should be issued then the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act would be redundant. The 1st respondent would ultimately submit that narrow construction of the provisions of the Act would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act. Therefore, the 1st respondent sought for a dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The 1st respondent would ultimately submit that narrow construction of the provisions of the Act would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act. Therefore, the 1st respondent sought for a dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter in which they would submit that under Section 15 of the Act two types of notices are contemplated; (i) a public notice which is shown in Form B and (ii) a private notice which is issued to the individual land owners through the Village Administrative Officer 15 days before the enquiry meeting, the same is shown in Form A. 9. The 3rd respondent would also try to draw the same distinction between the Sections 8 and 15 of the Act as taken by the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent would also contend that the present writ has been filed against the estoppel principle since the earlier acquisition in respect of the very same survey numbers have been accepted and the compensation was claimed by the petitioner. The public purpose is writ large. Therefore, the 3rd respondent also sought for a dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. M. Ajmal Khan the leaned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows: (a) Procedure as contemplated under the Act has not been followed in as much as Section 15(2) notice has not been preceded by notice under Section 8 of the Act. (b) Provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act has not been followed in its letter and spirit in as much as the private notice has not been issued. (c) Description of property has not been given in the impugned notification. (d) The impugned notification smacks of malafides, as the land on the opposite side has not been acquired and the petitioner is being targeted. 11. The learned Senior counsel would rely upon the following judgments: (i) Cee Deeyes Standard Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Chennai, 2013 (1) CWC 425 (ii) Sannarangappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2017 (12) SCC 797 (iii) Thirumani Dharmaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC Online 3772 12. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that there has to be a declaration that the road in question is a highway under Section 3 of the Act. 13. Collector Chennai, 2013 (1) CWC 425 (ii) Sannarangappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2017 (12) SCC 797 (iii) Thirumani Dharmaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC Online 3772 12. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that there has to be a declaration that the road in question is a highway under Section 3 of the Act. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would make the following submissions: (i) The present writ petition filed is a highly premature in as much as only the impugned notification has been issued calling for objections. (ii) Sections 8 and 15 of the Act operate on different fields and there is no necessity to first initiate proceedings under Section 8 of the Act before initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Act. (iii) The road has already been declared as State highway and therefore the arguments of the petitioner that it is not a highway cannot be accepted. (iv) The private notice contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act in respect of the petitioner could not be issued since the petitioner had moved this Court and obtained stay. As regards the others the notice has been issued. 14. Heard the learned counsels on either side. The discussion and findings are set out sequentially herein-below: Notice under Section 8 of the Act a pre-requisite for issue of notice under Section 15(2): 15.1. The primary argument of the petitioner is that the issue of notice under Section 8 of the Act is a pre-requisite before proceedings under Section 15 of the Act are initiated. Therefore, it would be useful to briefly consider the provisions of Section 8 and 15 of the Act which is extracted herein-below. “8. Power to fix highway, boundary, building line, control line: (1) The Highways authority of any division may, by notification, in relation to any highway or any area in that division, where the construction or development of a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken, fix: (a) the highway boundary, building line, or control line. (b) the highway boundary and the building line. (c) the building line and the control line: Provided that before the publication of the notification under this sub-section, a draft of the said notification shall be published inviting objections, if any, on the proposed fixation. (b) the highway boundary and the building line. (c) the building line and the control line: Provided that before the publication of the notification under this sub-section, a draft of the said notification shall be published inviting objections, if any, on the proposed fixation. (2) The draft of the notification under sub-section (1) shall contain: (a) all details of lands situated between the highway boundary line and control line proposed to be fixed and in the case of new works, the lands and persons benefited by the construction or development of such highway. (b) notice requiring all persons likely to be affected by such notification, to make their objections or suggestions, if any, in writing, with respect to the issue of such a notification, to the Highways authority within such period as may be prescribed. (3) After considering the representation. If any, received under sub-section (2), the Highways authority may, with the approval of the State Highways Authority: (i) drop the proposal to fix the highway boundary, the building line or the control line. (ii) publish the final notification under sub-section (1) with such modifications as may be considered necessary. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Government may, in consultation with the State Highways Authority, having regard to the situation or the requirements of any highway or the condition of the area through which such highway passes: (a) fix different building line and control line for such highway. (b) refrain from fixing the building line or control line for such highway or portion thereof. 15. Power to acquire land: (1) If the Government are satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of acquire land. any highway or for construction of bridges, culverts, causeways or other structures thereon or for any purpose incidental or ancillary thereto, in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notice specifying the description of such land and the particular purpose for which such land is required. (2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall call upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. (2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall call upon the owner and any other person having interest in such land to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The Government may, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or other person having interest on such land, pass such an order under sub-section (1), as they may deem fit. 15.2. Sections 8 to 14 of the Act are covered under Chapter III of the Act under the heading Restriction of Ribbon Development. Sections 15 to 25 fall under Chapter IV under the heading Acquisition of Property. A reading of Section 8 (1), (2) and (3) indicates that this is a power which is exercised by the Highways Authority “of a division.” Section 8(4) starts with a non-obstante clause and states that the Government can in consultation with the State Highways Authority and taking into consideration the situation and the requirements of any highway or the condition of the area in which such highway passes, fix different building line and control line or to refrain from fixing such lines. Therefore, a reading of Section 8(4) makes it clear that, dehors the provisions of Sections 8(1) to 8(3), the Government can exercise its right under Section 8(4) of the Act. The necessity for issuing a notice as contemplated under Section 8 (1) of the Act is done away with in the case of a power being exercised under Section 8(4) of the Act. Further, a reading of Section 8 and the other Sections under Chapter III indicates that the power under Section 8 of the Act does not contemplate an acquisition. 15.3. (a) It would be useful to understand what is meant by Ribbon Development. Further, a reading of Section 8 and the other Sections under Chapter III indicates that the power under Section 8 of the Act does not contemplate an acquisition. 15.3. (a) It would be useful to understand what is meant by Ribbon Development. The preamble of the Act reads as follows: “An Act to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be State Highways, restriction of ribbon development along such highways, prevention and removal of encroachment thereon, construction, maintenance and development of highways, and levy of betterment charges and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” (b) The statement of objects and reasons which formed the prelude for the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 would contain the following: “There is no separate legislation to regulate the roads in the State other than the National Highways. It has become the imperative need to enact a separate legislation covering various aspects relating to the roads in the State, other than National Highways with a view to fix the building and control lines of such roads, to declare such roads as State Highways, Major District Roads and Village Roads, to prevent any encroachment on such State Highways, to acquire required lands for formation and development of the State Highways. It is also considered necessary that the State Highways Authorities are vested with statutory powers to undertake such measures in the public interest.” (c) What is meant by the term Ribbon Development? This term refers to a line of houses built along existing highways (or railways or similar linear barriers) each being secured by individual accesses. In short, it refers to a row of buildings built along the main road. The petitioner has submitted an Article titled Ribbon Development along Highways and its Prevention which was published in the year 1996 by the Indian Road Congress Special Publication. This Article refers to this development as a ‘menace’ and a growing one with increasing urbanization and growing pressure on land near the city outskirts for residential and commercial purposes. The publication seeks to offer recommendations for tackling this problem. (d) The Article also informs us that to bring about a uniform legal code to effectively deal with this haphazard building development along the highways and to ensure maximum efficiency in the road use, the Government of India had drafted a model Highway Bill. The publication seeks to offer recommendations for tackling this problem. (d) The Article also informs us that to bring about a uniform legal code to effectively deal with this haphazard building development along the highways and to ensure maximum efficiency in the road use, the Government of India had drafted a model Highway Bill. The draft bill has been circulated to all the States for concurrence and as on the date of the publication of this Article, 5 States had conveyed their concurrence. The Draft Bill is also appended to the Article as an Annexure. The bill proposes that the Highways Authority with the previous approval of the State Government shall determine the building line and control line and should restrict the construction of a building between the highway and the building line and between the building line and control line. Some of the provisions of this Bill has been incorporated into Chapter III of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the scope and ambit of Section 8 falling under Chapter III of the Act and Section 15 comprised in Chapter IV are distinct and different. That apart, the petitioner’s premises will not fall under the category of Ribbon Development. 15.4. Section 15(1) of the Act opens with the following words: “If the Government are satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of any highway.” This indicates that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Government that is required for acquiring the land for forming a highway and not the satisfaction of the Highways Authority. This Chapter contemplates acquisition of the land, unlike Section 8, where acquisition of land is not contemplated. Therefore, Section 8(1) to 8(3) is the power exercised by the Highways Authority and Section 15 is the power exercised by the Government. 15.5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sannarangappa cited supra and had relied on paragraphs 5 and 6 thereon which reads as follows: “5. Thereafter under Section 8 of the State Act, a map is to be prepared in confirming with the notification under Section 7 which is also to be published and made available for inspection at prominent places. Thereafter under Section 8 of the State Act, a map is to be prepared in confirming with the notification under Section 7 which is also to be published and made available for inspection at prominent places. Under Section 15 of the State Act acquisition of land is contemplated at which stage again a notice is required to be given under Section 17(1) to the affected persons to establish their rights to the lands in question for the purposes of compensation. Section 17(2) of the State Act which contemplates such notice also gives an opportunity to the affected persons to object to the quantum of compensation and to the measurements taken. “6. From the above narration of the relevant provisions of the Act it clearly transpires that Section 15 of the State Act is a midway provision that the statute contemplates. What is of significance and which impacts the right of the landowners is the notification under Section 7 of the State Act fixing the highway boundaries, the building lines and the control lines. In respect of such an exercise notice under Section 7(2) of the State Act is contemplated whereby opportunity is given to the landowners to file their respective objections upon consideration of which the proposal can be modified or even abandoned. If at the stage of issuing notification under Section 7 such an opportunity is to be given, once the aforesaid stage is over and the map under Section 8 is published.” 15.6. However, a perusal of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 indicates that Chapter Restriction of Ribbon Development commences from Section 7 (which is more or less identical to Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act) and includes the acquisition of land or right of interest in land within the very same Chapter. Section 15 of the said Act, which deals with acquisition of land or right or interest in land does not have a similar provision as Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu States Highways Act. On the contrary, the language of Section 15 therein states that on the application of the Highways Authority if the State Government is satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of the Highway then the State Government should publish a notification in the official gazette. On the contrary, the language of Section 15 therein states that on the application of the Highways Authority if the State Government is satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of the Highway then the State Government should publish a notification in the official gazette. Once the notification is published, it is deemed a declaration that the land is needed for the purpose of highways and conclusive that the land is so needed and thereafter what is contemplated by the public notice under Section 17(1) therein is only to put the public on notice that the State Government intends to take possession of the land or as the case may be to extinguish any right or interest in the land and that claims for compensation has to be made to the officer as the Highways authority may designate. The language of Section 17(2) further confirms the above. The acquisition of the land is therefore a fait accompli. The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into considering the above provisions and taking note of the fact that the land owner under Section 15 did not have a right to oppose the acquisition held that the provisions of Section 7(2) therein which is similar to Section 8 of the Act has to be first completed before acquisition under Section 15 of the Act is undertaken. Therefore, the facts and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment may not apply to the facts of the case on hand. 15.6.1. That apart, in the judgment reported in R. Moorthy and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 (2) CWC 763 which the petitioner has relied on in support of the very same proposition, the learned Judge has not considered the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act. 15.7. In the unreported judgment in W.P. No. 1109 of 2014 (Jayaraman and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), another Single Judge of this Court had dealt with a similar contention that the procedure under Section 8 of the Act had to be complied with before the acquisition of land under Section 15 of the Act. The learned Judge after extracting the provisions Chapter wise has observed as follows: “35. State of Tamil Nadu), another Single Judge of this Court had dealt with a similar contention that the procedure under Section 8 of the Act had to be complied with before the acquisition of land under Section 15 of the Act. The learned Judge after extracting the provisions Chapter wise has observed as follows: “35. From the reading of the entire Act, it could be seen that the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, has been enacted, not only for declaration of certain highways, to be state highways, restriction of ribbon development along such highways, prevention and removal of encroachment thereon, but also enacted for construction, maintenance and development of highways, as well as levy of betterment charges and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. For the purpose of construction, maintenance or development of such highways, the Collector or any other officer, specifically appointed by the Government, can perform the functions of the Collector, under the Tamil Nadu State Highways Act, 2001. Appointment of Highways Authority, has been specifically mentioned in Section 5 of the Act. 36. Section 15 of the Act, starts with the opening sentence. If the Government are satisfied that any land is required for the purpose of any highway or for construction of bridges, culverts, causeways or other structures thereon, or for any purpose incidental or ancillary thereto, in furtherance of the objects of this Act. The Act cannot be read and interpreted to mean that it does not empower, the Government or the competent authority to acquire lands, for construction of a highways or for widening of any road, unless and until, a road has been declared as Highways, under Section 3 of the Act. The Act manifestly states that for the purpose of construction, maintenance or development of any highway lands can be acquired. The Act provides for construction of a highway. It provides for maintenance. An existing road can also be declared as State Highways, and developed. For the purpose of construction of a highway, maintenance, development, and in sum and substance, for the purpose of giving effect to the Act, all acts can be done by the competent authorities, which includes acquisition of lands also.” 15.8. The learned Judge has also dealt with the argument about cases where the road has not been declared as highways under Section 3 of the Act as follows: “43. The learned Judge has also dealt with the argument about cases where the road has not been declared as highways under Section 3 of the Act as follows: “43. If the contentions of the petitioners are to be accepted, then there is no meaning in using the words, “construction, maintenance and development of a road” with reference to the object, for which, the Act has been enacted. Sections 3 and 15 of the Act, operate separately. Section 15 is not dependent on Section 3 of the Act. The Act envisages and empowers the State Highway Authorities, to acquire lands for construction or formation of a road, which may be declared as a State Highway. Powers exercised under Section 3 of the Act, to declare the road, as (1) State Highway; (2) District Road; (3) Major District Road; (4) Other District Road and (5) Village Road, is independent of Section 15 of the Act.” 15.9. The learned Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in R. Kumar and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2006 (4) CTC 640 . The Hon’ble Division Bench was considering a case where the acquisition of land for the formation of highway was challenged on the ground that the same was inconsistent with the petitioner’s lawful right which had become final under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and as per the planning permission issued by the 2nd respondent.. The argument that was advanced was that alignment of the road was sought to be altered contrary to the plan approved by the technical authorities and further that the road has to be first declared as highways under Section 3 of the Act before the power under Section 15 of the Act could be invoked. The Hon’ble Bench held that the road in question had already been declared a highway and in paragraph 22 has dealt as follows: 22. The further argument that the authority under TNTCP Act will have to decide the road boundaries and also the road width does not merit any acceptance. We hold that the present road in question, viz. The Hon’ble Bench held that the road in question had already been declared a highway and in paragraph 22 has dealt as follows: 22. The further argument that the authority under TNTCP Act will have to decide the road boundaries and also the road width does not merit any acceptance. We hold that the present road in question, viz. OMR Road, presently called as IT Corridor, completely comes within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and any development of the said road including the fixation of the boundary and the width of the road have to be decided by the authorities under this Act. In this context, we may refer to Section 8(4)(a) of the Highways Act, which reads as follows: “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the Government may, in consultation with the State Highways Authority, having regard to the situation or the requirements of any highway or the condition of the area through which such highway passes: (a) fix different building line and control line for such highway.” Hence, we hold that once it is a Highway, Highways authorities can fix different building line and control line for such highway.” 15.10. In the case on hand, the impugned notification itself describes the reason for the acquisition as additional lands that are required for the formation of the “abundant NH/SHU/73 Highway.” Therefore, the land in question has already been declared as a highway. Therefore, taking into consideration the language of Sections 8 and 15 of the Act, the concept of Ribbon Development, the judgment of the Division Bench reported in R. Kumar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2016 (4) CTC 640 and the judgment in W.P. No. 1109 of 2014, the argument that Section 8 of the Act has to precede Section 15 of the Act has to necessarily be rejected. MALAFIDES: 16. One of the argument that has been put forward is that the acquisition of the petitioner’s lands suffers from malafides since the lands on the other side of the road is not being acquired and it is only the lands of the petitioner that is time and again being acquired. This Court had directed the learned AAG, to produce the technical sanction for the construction of this flyover at Goripalayam including the additional roads that are sought to be formed. This Court had directed the learned AAG, to produce the technical sanction for the construction of this flyover at Goripalayam including the additional roads that are sought to be formed. The said document has been produced and a reading of of the same would clearly show that the lands on either side are sought to be acquired and the impugned notification also shows the same. Therefore, the argument that only the lands of the petitioners is sought to be acquired stands disproved. Further, the route of the flyover bridge and the proposed road are coming up near the petitioner’s lands. Therefore, the question that their lands are being acquired time and again has to be rejected. Provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highway Rules, herein after called the Rules not followed: 17.1. An argument has been made that individual notices have not been sent and therefore, the impugned notice has to be quashed as it is contrary to the language of Section 15 (2) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Act. The respondents have shown proof that individual notices had been given to land owners though not on the very same day as the publication. A reading of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highway Rules would indicate that the contents of the public notice and the show cause notice to individual owners would have the same contents. The petitioner has come to know about the proceeding from the publication and has moved this Court within 7 days of its publication in the Daily. A reading of the provisions of Section 15(2) and Rule 5 of the Act contemplate the issue of notice in two forms. One in the form of a show cause notice to the individual land owners and the person interested in the lands and another in the form of a public notice published in a Tamil newspaper as well as in an English newspaper having circulation in the locality putting the general public on notice that acquisition proceedings are proposed to be held. It does not state that the notice has to be issued simultaneously, it only states that this notice has to be issued prior to publishing notice under Section 15(1) of the Act. It does not state that the notice has to be issued simultaneously, it only states that this notice has to be issued prior to publishing notice under Section 15(1) of the Act. Rule 5(2) states that where an objection is received from a person interested then a date has to be fixed for hearing the objection and notice has to thereafter be given to the objector as well as the highways department and a date fixed for enquiry. In the instant case, we are still at the threshold, namely, at the state of notice under Section 15(2) r/w Rule 5 and objections yet to be enquired into. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted to the Court on instructions that they are ready to grant further time to all the landowners for submitting their objection for which a fresh notice would be issued. Therefore, this issue is purely procedural and does not vitiate the proceedings. Further, the petitioner is not prejudiced by the non issue of the notice. 17.2. In the judgment reported in Veeyel Enterprises, Represented by its Managing Partner, S.P. Lakshmanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (3) L.W. 662 : 2015 (5) MLJ 641 the Division Bench was considering a case, where the challenge to the acquisition proceeding was that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Rules had not been followed. The Division Bench in Para 26 of the said judgment observed as follows: “26.........However, in the case on hand, since the objection was received much before the date of enquiry and the appellants were aware of the date of enquiry and as such, the appellants were not prejudiced from any angle. The appellants had sufficient time and opportunity to place their case before the Land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry. Thus, it cannot be held that for want of nonconforming to the sequence as contemplated under Rule 5(2), ibid, strictly by fixing the date of enquiry after receipt of the objection, a prejudice has been caused to the appellants. For this technical deficiency, we are of the considered opinion that the entire procedure cannot be held as perverse and vitiated. “27. In a similar situation, while considering the non-compliance of procedural law in case of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, the Supreme Court, in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy v. G. Veera Swamy, (2011) 4 SCC 306 observed as under: “31. “27. In a similar situation, while considering the non-compliance of procedural law in case of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, the Supreme Court, in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy v. G. Veera Swamy, (2011) 4 SCC 306 observed as under: “31. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma this Court relying on Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh has held: (S.K. Sharma case, SCC p. 387, Para 29) “29.......But then even a mandatory requirement can be waived by the person concerned if such mandatory provision is conceived in his interest and not in public interest.” In the aforesaid case, this Court has further held: (S.K. Sharma case, SCC p. 389, Para 33) “33. (3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under ‘no notice’, ‘no opportunity’ and ‘no hearing’ categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice.” 32. The provisions of the Act and the Rules mandatorily requiring notification or publication of the notice of the case after the Special Tribunal or the Special Court takes cognizance are procedural provisions and the law laid down by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma is that violation of such procedural provisions will not vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is caused to the party complaining of the violation. The respondents in the two cases before us not only had notice of the application under Section 7-A of the Act before the Special Tribunal but also filed their replies to the application and got the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case and had not suffered any prejudice for non-compliance with the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 7-A of the Act or Rule 7 of the Rules. The High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal in the present case on the ground that a notification or notice in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules had not been issued after the case was taken cognizance of by the Special Tribunal.” 28. The High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal in the present case on the ground that a notification or notice in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules had not been issued after the case was taken cognizance of by the Special Tribunal.” 28. The further contention of the appellants that advice of the first appellant for the purpose of alignment and designing of Highways was beneficial, which could have saved the acquisition of the appellants’ land, is noted to be rejected as it is for the Highways Department as well as the Government to satisfy the design and requirement of the Highways. Needless to state that the Government of Tamil Nadu have accorded administrative sanction for the development of Chennai Outer Ring Road Phase-I under design, build, finance, operate and transfer on annuity basis in G.O.Ms. No. 32, Highways and Minor Ports (HF-1) Department, dated 25.2.2009, which is not doubted.” 17.3. In the case on hand, the petitioner is aware of the contents of the public notice under Section 15(2) of the Act r/w Rule 5 of the Rules and therefore cannot seek to quash the entire proceedings on the ground that the show cause notice to individuals as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules has not been issued simultaneously. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: 18. As regards the contention that the description of the property has not been provided, the same can be addressed in the objections that the petitioner can make in respect of the notice now issued under Section 15(2) of the Act and is once again a procedural issue. 18.1. The argument advanced by the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the aforesaid reason. 19. The Highways Authorities before they proceed with the construction of Highways undertake a detailed and thorough study by experts after which the project reports are prepared. Therefore, on the basis of a single objection, the acquisition cannot be nullified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and others, (2011) 12 SCC 69 observed as follows: “28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and others, (2011) 12 SCC 69 observed as follows: “28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub-serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 20. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall submit their objections to the public notice and the respondents shall send individual notices to all the land owners re-fixing the date for receiving objections and the date of enquiry. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.