M. Mohan Versus The State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

M. Mohan Versus The State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA­ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.  12616­17/2022

M. Mohan                …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.    …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

common judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.

2169 and 2170 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of

the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has

confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned

Single Judge in respective writ petitions, the original writ

1

petitioner – original land owner has preferred the present

Special Leave Petitions.

2. That the lands in question owned by the petitioner herein –

original   land   owner   were   required   to   construct   Grade

Separators on Periyar EVR Salai near Aminjakari, Nelson

Manickam   Road   Junction   and   Anna   Nagar   3rd  Avenue

junction,   for   the   purpose   of   constructing   a   Flyover   and

Subway in the said location. The said lands were acquired

under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act,   2001).   That   a   notice

under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2001 was issued inviting

objections of owners and any other person having interest in

the lands to be acquired to show cause as to why the lands

may not be acquired. The petitioner herein – original land

owner   submitted   his   detailed   objections   and   the   notices

were also sent to the highways authorities/department of

the   division   concerned.   According   to   the   State,   after

considering the objections raised by the original land owner

on   the   report   submitted   by   the   highways   authorities,   a

notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 was issued.

The   original   land   owners   being   aggrieved   with   the

2

notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 filed

writ petitions before the High Court contending, inter­alia,

that the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 is

in violation of the procedure to be followed under Rule 5 of

the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred

to as the Rules, 2003). It was the case on behalf of the

original writ petitioner that Rule 5 lays down the manner for

publication   of   the   public   notice   and   the   manner   of

conducting   the   enquiry.   According   to   the   original   writ

petitioner, before publishing a notice under Section 15(1),

the Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector

shall   call upon  the  owner  and  any  other  person   having

interest in the land to show cause as to why the land may

not be acquired. If objections are received from a person

interested   in   the   land,   the   Government   or   Collector   or

Special Deputy Collector shall fix a date for hearing the

objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as

to the Highways Department. According to the original land

owner, thereafter the Highways Department shall file, on or

before the date fixed by the Government or Collector or

Special Deputy Collector a statement by way of an answer

3

or   response   to   the   objections   and   may   also   depute   a

representative   to   attend   the   enquiry   and   thereafter   the

Government or Collector or Special Deputy Collector shall

hear the objector and the Highways Department and record

any evidence that may be produced by either party and on

completion of the enquiry, the Collector shall submit all

details of the enquiry to the Government to pass an order

under   sub­section   (3)   of   Section   15.   According   to   the

original writ petitioner without waiting for the response from

the   Highways   Department   and   without   giving   any

opportunity of being heard to the objectors, the notification

under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been issued, which

is in clear violation of Rule 5 of Rules, 2003. 

2.1 On the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the State

that the notifications under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001

was issued after considering the report of the Collector on

the objections submitted by the original land owners and

even   the   response   from   the   Highways   Department   was

received.   That   the   learned   Single   Judge   by   a   detailed

judgment   and   order   dismissed   the   writ   petitions   by

observing that the notification under Section 15(1) of the

4

Act,   2001   was   followed   by   a   detailed   enquiry   and   after

considering   the   objections   raised   by   the   original   land

owners. The learned Single Judge opined that there was

substantial compliance and there is no illegality committed

in issuing the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act,

2001. 

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the

writ petitions, the original writ petitioner filed writ appeal(s)

before the High Court. By the common impugned judgment

and   order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has

dismissed the said appeal(s) which has given rise to the

present Special Leave Petitions.      

3. Shri   Huzefa   A.   Ahmadi,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has

appeared on behalf of the petitioner – original land owner. It

is vehemently submitted by Shri Ahmadi that in the present

case before issuing notification under Section 15(1) of the

Act, 2001, the procedure required to be followed under Rule

5 of  the  Rules,  2003, which  was  required to  be strictly

followed, have not been followed.

5

3.1 Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of   the   petitioner   has   submitted   that   before   issuing   a

notification under Section 15(1), the following procedure as

per Rules 5(2) and 5(3) shall have to be strictly followed: ­ 

(i) State’s delegated authority receives objections of

the land owner ­ Rule 5(2);

(ii) State’s   delegated   authority   fixes   a   date   for

hearing the objections and gives notice thereof to

the objector and the requisitioning authority ­

Rule 5(2);

(iii) Copy   of   the   land   owner’s   objections   shall   be

forwarded to the requisitioning authority ­ Rule

5(2);

(iv) On the date fixed for enquiry, the State shall

hear the objector and the representative of the

requisitioning   authority,   if   any   and   record

evidence ­ Rule 5(3);

(v) On   or   before   the   date   fixed   for   hearing,   the

requisitioning authority may submit an answer

statement to the objections ­ Rule 5(2)

It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   without

waiting   for   any   response   from   the   Highways

Department/authorities   to   the   objections   raised   by   the

6

original land owner, notification under Section 15(1) of the

Act, 2001 has been issued. 

3.2 It   is   further   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   the

acquisition of the petitioner’s land was sought to be done in

two parts. While in the first part, the petitioner’s objections

were submitted on 15.12.2010. However, the requisitioning

authority’s   (Highways   Department)   response   thereto   was

sent only on 25.01.2011 – a month after the enquiry was

superficially held on 24.12.2010. It is contended that the

aforesaid is in clear violation of the procedure envisaged

under the Rules. It is submitted that having forwarded the

objections   to   the   requisitioning   authority   seeking   for   its

comments, the enquiry ought not to have been held prior to

receipt of the comments. That even after receiving of the

comments   of   the   requisitioning   authority,   post   the

superficial   enquiry,   the   same   were   not   provided   to   the

petitioner   and/or   no   fresh   enquiry   was   conducted

thereafter,   prior   to   the   issuance   of   notification   under

Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001. That if such comments were

provided to the petitioner, he would have been in a better

position   to   place   before   the   State,   inter­alia,   that   his

7

objections  were  not  properly  considered  and/or  that   the

response of the requisitioning authority did not respond to

his specific objections; the response was faulty, incorrect,

etc.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore,   the   petitioner   was

deprived of a meaningful enquiry under the Act and Rules,

thereby causing grave prejudice to him.

3.3 It is submitted that meanwhile, in case of the acquisition

under   the   second   part,   the   petitioner   submitted   his

objections on 15.12.2011, and the enquiry was superficially

held   on   15.12.2011   itself.   It   was   an   empty   formality.

Therefore,   for   the   second   part   of   the   acquisition,   the

petitioner’s   objections   were   never   forwarded   to   the

requisitioning authority, which is a mandatory requirement

as per Rule 5(2). Further, there was no notice fixing a date

for hearing of objections under Rule 5(2) and the hearing

was held on the same day the objections were required to be

submitted, which is also contrary to Rules.

3.4 It   is   submitted   that   even   otherwise   a   perusal   of   the

responses   given   by   the   requisitioning   authority   shows

identical and mechanical responses it gave in response to

8

all   objectors,   thereby   clearly   showing   non­application   of

mind. 

3.5 It   is   further   contended   by   Shri   Ahmadi,   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as such

the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in

not considering and/or in holding that Rules 5(2) and 5(3)

are to be ignored as they are not in conformity with Section

15(2) of the Act and therefore not enforceable. It is urged

that there was no occasion for the Division Bench of the

High Court to hold so, more particularly, when these Rules

were   duly   framed   and   placed   before   the   Legislative

Assembly and issued, and have stood the test of time. It is

submitted that their vires have never been questioned and

the State has been following the Rules without demur. That

the   High   Court   ought   to   have   appreciated   that   the

procedure set down by these Rules are a safeguard against

arbitrariness,   and   protect   the   expectation   of   fair

adjudication.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this

Court  in the  case of  State   of   Mysore   &   Ors.   Vs.   V.K.

Kangan  &  Ors.;   (1976)  2  SCC  895  wherein it is held by

this Court that there is no conflict between Rule 3(b) of the

9

Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules and Section 5A(2) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that the said

Rule 3(b) is similar to the present Rule 5(2). 

3.6 Making the above submissions it is prayed to set aside the

impugned   judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High

Court and consequently to set aside the acquisition.  

4. Heard   Shri   Huzefa   A.   Ahmadi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,

appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 

4.1 That the petitioner herein – original writ petitioner before

the   High   Court   challenged   the   acquisition   of   lands   in

question which were acquired under the provisions of the

Tamil   Nadu   Highways   Act,   2001.   The   acquisition   was

challenged,   inter­alia,   on   the   ground   that   the   procedure

required under Rule 5 of Rules, 2003 has not been followed

and while considering the objections raised by the petitioner

– land owner the opinion of the highways authorities of the

division   concerned   was   not   considered   and   also   on   the

ground that before issuing notification under Section 15(1)

of the Act, 2001, the objections of the land owner were not

properly   considered.   That   the   learned   Single   Judge

dismissed   the   writ   petitions   observing   that   there   was   a

10

substantial compliance of the procedure as required to be

followed   under   Rule   5   of   Rules,   2003   inasmuch   as   the

objections raised by the petitioner – original land owner,

were specifically dealt with and considered before issuing

the   notification   under   Section   15(1)   of   the   Act,   2001.

However, while affirming the judgment and order passed by

the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of the High

Court has further observed that Rule 5(2) to Rule 5(3) is not

in consonance with Section 15(2) and therefore, it is to be

ignored. 

5. While appreciating the submissions made by Shri Ahmadi,

learned   Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

petitioner, Section 15 of the Act, 2001 and Rule 5 of Rules,

2003 are required to be referred to and considered, which

are as under: ­ 

“TAMILNADU HIGHWAYS ACT, 2001 

Section 15. Power to acquire land: 

(1) 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, 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. 

11

(2) Before publishing a notice under Sub­section (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.   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 subsection (1), as they may deem fit.”

“TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS RULES, 2003 

5.   Manner   of   publication   of   the   public   notice.  ­

Before  publishing  a  notice  under  sub­section  (1)  of

section 15, the Government or the Collector or the

Special   Deputy   Collector   (Land   Acquisition),   Tamil

Nadu Urban Development Project III, as the case may

be shall in addition to calling upon the owner and any

other person having interest in the land to show cause

as to why the land should not be acquired, shall also

cause a public notice to that effect to be published in

one   English   and   in   one   Tamil   newspapers   having

circulation in the locality. The said notice shall also be

displayed in the offices of the,­

(i) Highways Authority of the division concerned; 

(ii) Village   Administrative   Officer   of   the   village

concerned; and 

(iii) Tahsildar of the taluk concerned. 

(2) If any objection is received from a person interested

in the land within the time prescribed in the public

notice issued under sub­section 2 of section 15, the

Government   or  the   Collector   or  the   Special   Deputy

Collector   (Land   Acquisition),   Tamil   Nadu   Urban

Development Project III, as the case may be, shall fix a

date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof

to the objector as well as to the Highways Department.

Copies of the objection shall also be forwarded to the

Highways Department. 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 to the objections and may also depute a

representative to attend the enquiry; 

12

(3) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to

which the enquiry may be adjourned, the Government

or the Collector or the Special Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project

III, as the case may be, shall hear the objector or a

person   authorised   by   him   in   this   behalf   and   the

representatives, if any, of the Highways Department

and   record   any   evidence   that   may   be   produced   in

support of the objection and in support of the need for

acquiring the land; 

(4) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Collector, on

completion of the enquiry, the Collector shall submit

all the details of the enquiry to the Government to pass

order under sub­section (3) of section 15; 

(5)   Where   the   enquiry   is   conducted   by   the

Government, the Government will pass order under

sub­section (3) of section 15;”

5.1 In the present case public notice under Section 15(2) of the

Act, 2001 was issued on 30.11.2010 and paper publication

under Section 15(2) notice was issued on 03.12.2010. That

the   petitioner   submitted   his   objections   on   15.12.2010;

enquiry was conducted on 24.12.2010; objections were sent

to the Highways Department and the remarks were called

for on 20.12.2010. The Highways Department forwarded its

reply/statement may be after conduct of the enquiry on

24.12.2010 but before the notification under Section 15(1)

of the Act, 2001 was issued. It is the case on behalf of the

petitioner that at the time when the enquiry was conducted

response from the Highways Department was not before the

13

authority and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to

put   forward   his   case   on   the   answers   to   the   objections

tendered by the Highways Department. However, it is to be

noted   that   Section   15   is   a   substantive   provision   which

confers powers upon the authority to acquire the land. Subsection   (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   sub­section   (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. Sub­section (3) of Section 15 provides that the

Government may, after considering the cause [objections

raised   pursuant   to   the   notice   under   sub­section   (2)   of

Section 15], pass such order under sub­section (1). 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. Sub­rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that if any objection

14

is received from a person interested in the land within the

time   prescribed   in   the   public   notice   issued   under   subsection 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 sub­rule (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

15

provision to furnish a statement by way of answer to the

objections filed by the Highways Department to the original

land owners. The object and purpose of said sub­rule (2) of

Rule 5 as observed hereinabove is to hear the Highways

Department on the objections raised by the original land

owners.   Therefore,   non­filing   of   a   statement   by   way   of

answer   to   the   objections   by   the   Highways   Department

and/or non­furnishing the copy of the same to the original

land   owners   shall   not   vitiate   the   entire   process   of

acquisition   process   and/or   the   notification   issued   under

sub­section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001. It can be said

that the said provision is for the benefit of the Highways

Department so that no adverse decision is taken by the

State   Government   without   giving   an   opportunity   to   the

Highways Department.  

6. In the present case, before issuance of notification under

Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001, fullest opportunity has been

given to the original land owner to submit his objections.

Thereafter,   the   enquiry   has   been   conducted   as   required

under sub­section (2) of Section 15 and after considering

the objections and having been satisfied that the land is

16

required   for   the   purpose   of   Highways   Department,   the

notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been

issued. It is to be noted that before issuing the notification

under Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001, a statement by way of

answer to the objections by the Highways Department was

before the authority and thereafter the notification under

Section 15(1) of the Act, 2001 has been issued. Therefore,

the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High

Court was right in observing that there is a substantial

compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5

of the Rules, 2003 and no interference of the Court is called

for.  

7. However, at the same time Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior

Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is right in

making submission that as the validity of Rule 5 was not

before the High Court therefore, the High Court ought not to

have   held   Rule   5   to   be  ultra   vires.   However,   from   the

impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the

High Court, it appears that the Division Bench of the High

Court was of the opinion that Rule 5 being a subordinate

legislation is inconsistent with the provision of Section 15(2)

17

of the Act, and therefore, the same is to be ignored. It is true

that the same was not warranted and we are of the opinion

that Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section

15(2) of the Act. However, on merits and for the reasons

stated   above,   we   are   in   complete   agreement   with   the

ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge confirmed

by   the   Division   Bench   of   the  High   Court   upholding  the

acquisition in question. Hence, we do not propose to further

enter into the observations made by the Division Bench that

the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 is inconsistent

with Section 15(2) of the Act, 2001. 

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there

is no substance in the present Special Leave Petitions and

therefore,   the   same   deserve   to   be   dismissed   and   are

accordingly dismissed.      

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

18