Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Chennai-Salem Highway Project: Project Director vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 957

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can the government acquire land for a new highway project, even if it’s not an existing road? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, along with the timing of environmental clearances, in a case concerning the Chennai-Salem highway project. This judgment clarifies the powers of the government in infrastructure development and land acquisition.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the legality of land acquisition for the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem (C-K-S) National Highway project. The court considered challenges to the acquisition process, particularly regarding the need for prior environmental clearances and the validity of declaring new highways on greenfield land.

The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai, and Krishna Murari. The judgment was authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem (C-K-S) National Highway project, a part of the larger “Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I” initiative. This project aimed to improve freight and passenger movement by developing economic corridors, inter-corridors, and greenfield expressways. The C-K-S highway was intended to reduce travel distance and decongest existing routes.

Initially, the project focused on the Chennai-Madurai (C-M) Economic Corridor. However, after a meeting on 19 January 2018, the plan was changed to develop a greenfield alignment between Chennai and Salem via Harur, designated as NH-179B (Tambaram to Harur) and NH-179A (Harur to Salem). This change was intended to reduce the distance between Chennai and Salem/Coimbatore by 40 km and to divert traffic from congested routes.

Following this decision, notifications were issued under Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, declaring the new routes as national highways. Subsequently, notifications under Section 3A(1) were issued to acquire the necessary lands. These notifications were challenged by affected landowners and through public interest litigations, leading to the present case.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956: This section empowers the Central Government to declare any highway as a national highway through an official gazette notification. The Supreme Court clarified that this power is not limited to existing highways but extends to new greenfield routes as well.
  “The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any other highway to be a national highway and on the publication of such notification such highway shall be deemed to be specified in the Schedule.”
• Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956: This section allows the Central Government to declare its intention to acquire land for building, maintaining, managing, or operating a national highway. The court emphasized that this notification is only an expression of intent and does not require prior environmental clearance.
  “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.”
• Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956: This section deals with the declaration of acquisition, which vests the land absolutely in the Central Government. The Court clarified that the declaration under this section must be issued within one year of the notification under Section 3A.
  “Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C 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 3A.”
• Entry 23 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution: This entry grants the Parliament the exclusive power to make laws regarding “highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways.”
• Entry 13 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution: This entry grants the State Legislature the power to make laws regarding “roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I.”
• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the notification dated 14.9.2006: This notification mandates prior environmental clearance for certain projects, but the court clarified that this does not apply to the initial land acquisition process but to the commencement of project work.

The Court also referred to the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988, which establishes the NHAI as the executing agency for highway projects.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Arguments by the Appellants (Government/NHAI):

• The writ petitions challenging the land acquisition notifications were premature, as they were merely expressions of intent.
• Environmental clearances are not required before issuing notifications under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956.
• The government has the power to acquire any land for national highway construction, including greenfield areas.
• The decision to change the project from the Chennai-Madurai corridor to the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem route was a policy decision based on expert advice.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the policy decision of the competent authority.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landowners):

• Prior environmental clearance is mandatory before issuing notifications under Section 3A.
• The change in the project route was arbitrary and not based on proper studies.
• The appointment of the consultant for the changed project was improper.
• The project was not part of the original Bharatmala Pariyojna and lacked necessary approvals.
• The acquisition of greenfield land for a new highway is illegal.
• Public hearing should have preceded the land acquisition proceedings.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the writ petitions challenging the notifications were premature.
2. Whether the notifications under Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, were valid for declaring a new highway on greenfield land.
3. Whether prior environmental clearance is mandatory before issuing notifications under Section 3A of the Act.
4. Whether the change of the project from the Chennai-Madurai corridor to the Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem route was valid.
5. Whether the appointment of the consultant for the changed project was improper.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Bombay vs. R.S. Nanji [AIR 1956 SC 294]:* The Court agreed that judicial review is limited, and the government’s decision on public purpose is generally final, unless there is a colorable exercise of power.
• Somawanti & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1963 SC 151]:* The Court reiterated that the government’s declaration on public purpose is final unless there is a colorable exercise of power.
• B. Nambirajan & Ors. vs. District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil & Ors. [CDJ 2018 MHC 2862]:* The Court followed this precedent, which held that the Central Government has the power to acquire open greenfield land.
• Jayaraman & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2014 SCCOnline Madras 4301]:* The Court followed this precedent, which held that the Central Government has the power to acquire open greenfield land.
• J. Parthiban & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [AIR 2008 Mad 203]:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not mandate prior environmental clearance before land acquisition.
• Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa & Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 371]:* The Court agreed with the importance of environmental concerns but clarified that the judgment did not require prior clearance before land acquisition.
• M. Velu vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2010 SCCOnline Madras 2736]:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not mandate prior environmental clearance before land acquisition.
• M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 388]:* The Court acknowledged the importance of the public trust doctrine but did not find it applicable to invalidate the land acquisition process.
• M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 118]:* The Court acknowledged the importance of the public trust doctrine but did not find it applicable to invalidate the land acquisition process.
• Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2012) 1 SCC 792]:* The Court acknowledged the importance of sustainable development but did not find it a reason to invalidate the land acquisition process.
• Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 162]:* The Court reiterated that the courts should be slow in interfering with policy matters.
• Kushala Shetty & Ors. [(2011) 12 SCC 69]:* The Court reiterated that the courts should not interfere in the viability and feasibility of projects.
• Col. A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1981 SC 1545]:* The Court reiterated that courts should be slow in interfering with policy decisions.
• Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1990) 1 SCC 109]:* The Court referred to this case to support its interpretation of constitutional provisions.
• Cipla Ltd. & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 1]:* The Court reiterated that the courts should be slow in interfering with policy matters.
• K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1]:* The Court referred to this case to support its interpretation of legislative power.
• Diljit Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2010 SCC Online P&H 11847]:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not correctly interpret the law regarding environmental clearances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, which can be categorized as follows:

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of legal provisions and the scope of judicial review. The Court emphasized the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact laws for national highways and the executive power of the Central Government in this regard.

The Court also considered the policy decision of the government to change the project route, acknowledging that such decisions are within the government’s domain and should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or malafide. The need for infrastructure development and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters were also key factors.

The Court also considered the need to balance infrastructure development with environmental protection.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The Central Government has the power to declare any land as a national highway, including greenfield areas, under Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
• Prior environmental clearance is not mandatory before issuing notifications under Section 3A of the Act; it is required before commencing the actual construction or project work.
• Courts should be slow in interfering with policy decisions of the government unless they are arbitrary or malafide.
• The time spent in obtaining environmental clearances is excluded from the one-year timeline for issuing notifications under Section 3D of the Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the authorities to restore the mutation entries in the revenue records to the names of the respective landowners. It also directed that the time spent in obtaining environmental clearances be excluded from the one-year timeline for issuing notifications under Section 3D of the Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Central Government has the power to declare any land as a national highway, including greenfield areas, and prior environmental clearance is not mandatory before issuing notifications under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court also clarified the timeline for issuing declarations under Section 3D of the Act. This judgment clarifies the powers of the government in infrastructure development and land acquisition, and also balances it with the need to ensure environmental protection. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the interpretation of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition process for the Chennai-Salem highway project, clarifying that the government has the power to acquire land for new highways, even if it is not an existing road. The Court also held that prior environmental clearances are not required before the initial land acquisition process but are necessary before the commencement of project work. The judgment provides clarity on the legislative andexecutive powers of the government in infrastructure development and land acquisition.