AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioners in all these writ petitions have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of
Certiorari to quash notification dated 06.01.2011. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 16582 of 2011. The pleaded case
of the petitioners is that the petitioner along with family members, is the owner of land, measuring an extent of 7.62 acres at Nerkundram Village
No. 83, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, comprised in S.Nos. 24/2, 25/2B1, 25/2B3, 26/1A, 58, 59, 60 and 61/1 to 3. An attempt was made
in the year 1975, by the C.M.D.A., to acquire the lands. The decision was challenged by the petitioner and the acquisition proceedings initiated
against the petitioner, were quashed.
The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of the fact that the acquisition proceedings had been quashed, the requisite no objection certificate (for
short '' N.O.C.'') for planing permission was not issued in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner''s challenge to the action of the C.M.D.A., in refusing the grant of NOC, which was also set aside by this Court. The case of the
petitioner is that, conditional NOC was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, a few months, prior to the filing of the Writ
Petition, permission was sought from the petitioner, for measuring and demarcating the land and as permitted by the petitioner, the land was
demarcated, after being measured. That after demarcating the land, the officials of the respondents started dumping pipes, machineries etc., on the
land belonging to the petitioner.
On enquiry, the petitioner was informed orally, that the land was required by the Government for setting up a project called as ""Metro Rail
Project"".
Thereafter, the petitioner located the notification dated 06.1.2011, issued u/s 4 (ii) of the Land Acquisition Act. This was the notification,
invoking urgency Clause u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').
The petitioner, instead of challenging the notification in accordance with law, chose to file a representation to the respondents, calling upon the
respondents not to enter in their property.
On the pleadings noted above, the notification, dated 06.1.2011, has been challenged, on the ground that the action of the respondents in
trespassing into the land of the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice and the mandate of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner, before commencing the acquisition proceedings.
The ground is also taken that there was no necessity to invoke the urgency clause, u/s 17 of the Act.
It is appropriate to notice here that in the pleadings, no grounds, whatsoever, has been disclosed, nor, any materials is forthcoming to challenge
the invoking of the urgency clause.
The ground of challenge is also that there is no public purpose, and that, the land required for the aforementioned project, does not cover the
petitioner''s land.
Finally, the stand taken is that the respondents have not followed the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, reported in Union of India
(UOI) and Others Vs. Mukesh Hans etc.,
The learned Seniour Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no ground to invoke the urgency Clause u/s 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act. That by invoking Clause 17, the petitioner has been denied the right to file objection u/s 5-A of the Act, whereas, in view the
nature of the project, there is no necessity, whatsoever, to invoke the urgency Clause.
In support of the contention, the learned Seniour Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in [Sri Radhy
Shyam (dead) through L.Rs.. and others Vs. The State of U.P. and others] in Civil Appeal No. 3261 of 2011, wherein, it has been held, on the
facts of that case, that
the only conclusion which can be drawn is that there was no real and substantive urgency, which could justify invoking of the urgency provision u/s
17(1) and in any case, there was no warrant to exclude the application of Section 5-A, which, as mentioned above, represent the statutory
embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem.
On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Seniour Counsel for the petitioner. Urgency provision has been
invoked, as the ""Metro Rail Project"" is in progress. It is not the case of the petitioner that the project has not yet begun. Admittedly, the project has
commenced, therefore, it cannot be said that invoking the urgency clause was arbitrary or contrary to law, especially, when the Writ Petition lacks
pleadings to justify the challenge to invoke the urgency provisions, as were disclosed in [Sri Radhy Shyam (dead) through L.Rs.. and others Vs.
The State of U.P. and others].
The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that acquisition proceedings is not for the public purpose, is also misconceived.
The project is being implemented in the interest of the public at large. The Writ Petition lacks material pleadings, only vague grounds are raised to
challenge the acquisition of land under the statute for a important public purpose.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 16582 of 2011 is dismissed, as no case is made out by the petitioner to
interfere with the issuance of notification dated 6.1.2011.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
W.P. No. 21013 of 2011:
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari to quash notification
dated 06.01.2011.
This Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, as the only grievance of the petitioner is that the
acquired land is under the ownership of the Temple viz., Idol of Sri Thiruvalleswarar Temple, Nerkundram, Thiruvallur District, represented by its
sole Hereditary Trustee, Mr. T.N. Shanmugavel, but, on basis of the wrong entries in the revenue records, the respondents shown the name of
owner, as Thiripura Sundari Koil, in the notification. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the only Temple in existence, and therefore, the
notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Government can be safely read as Thiripura Sundari Koil @ Sri Thiruvalleswarar Temple, Nerkundram.
The necessary correction is required to be made in the proceedings to avoid any legal complication, on the ground of wrong name recorded in
the notification and the subsequent proceedings.
With the observation referred to above, the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 21013 of 2011 is disposed of, by directing the respondents to change
the name of the petitioner in all acquisition proceedings as Thiripura Sundari Koil @ Sri Thiruvalleswarar Temple, Nerkundram, represented
through its sole Hereditary Trustee, Mr. T.N. Shanmugavel. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.