M. MOHAN versus THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 02-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
M. MOHAN
v.
 THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12616-17 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – ss. 15(1),
15(2) and 15(3) – Land of the petitioner-original land owner was
acquired under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act (‘Act’)
– Notice issued u/s.15(2) of the Act inviting objections – Petitioner
submitted objections to proposed land acquisition – Thereafter,
notification issued u/s.15(1) of the Act – Petitioner filed writ before
the High Court contending, inter alia, that the notification u/s.15(1)
is in violation of the procedure to be followed u/r.5 of the Tamil
Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 – It was contended on behalf of the
petitioner that notification u/s.15(1) was issued without waiting for
any response from the Highways Departments/authorities to the
objections raised by the petitioner – High Court opined that there
was substantial compliance and there was no illegality committed
in issuing the notification u/s.15(1) of the Act – Special leave to
appeal – Held: The object and purpose of r.5(2) is to hear the
Highways Department on the objections raised by the original land
owners – r.5(2) further provides that the Highways Department may
file a statement by way of answer to the objections – It is not a
mandatory requirement – Highways Department may or may not
file a statement by way of answer to the objections – Therefore,
non-filing of statement by way of answer to the objections by the
Highways Department and/ or non-furnishing the copy of the same
to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of
acquisition process and/ or the notification issued u/s. 15(1) of the
Act – Therefore, High Court was right in observing that there was a
substantial compliance of s.15 of the Act, 2001 r/w r.5 of the Rules,
2003 – No interference called for – Tamil Nadu Highways Rules,
2003 – r.5.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 139
139
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Dismissing the SLPs, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
Act is a substantive provision which confers powers upon the
authority to acquire the land. Sub-section (1) of Section 15
provides for issuance of the notification to acquire land 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. Subsection (2) of Section
15 provides that before publishing a notice under sub-section (l),
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.
Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 can be said to be a procedural provision
and it provides for the manner of publication of public notice.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that if any objection is received
from a person interested in the land within the time prescribed
in the public notice issued under sub-section 2 of Section 15, the
Government or the Collector or the Special Deputy Collector
(Land Acquisition), shall fix a date for hearing the objections and
give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the Highways
Department. It further provides that copies of the objection shall
also be forwarded to the Highways Department and the Highways
Department MAY file on or before the date fixed by the
Government or the Collector, as the case may be, a statement by
way of answer or response to the objections and may also depute
a representative to attend the enquiry. The object and purpose
of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 seems to be to give an opportunity to
the Highways Department also to meet with the objections raised
by the land owners and so as to give an opportunity to the
Highways Department to put forward their case. It further
provides that the Highways Department may file a statement by
way of answer to the objections. It is not a mandatory requirement.
Therefore, the Highways Department may or may not file a
statement by way of answer to the objections. There is no further
provision to furnish a statement by way of answer by the Highways
Department to the objections filed by the original land owners.
Therefore, non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the
objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing
the copy of the same to the original land owners

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.