Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Highways, Clarifies Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules: M. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022)

Date of the Judgment: September 2, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 742
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a land acquisition be invalidated if the requisitioning authority’s response to objections is not provided to the land owner before issuing the acquisition notification? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the acquisition of land for highway construction in Tamil Nadu. The Court clarified the procedural requirements under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, specifically regarding the handling of objections to land acquisition. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case involves the acquisition of land owned by the petitioner, M. Mohan, for the construction of grade separators on Periyar EVR Salai in Chennai. The land was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The acquisition process began with a notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act, inviting objections from landowners. M. Mohan submitted his objections, and these were forwarded to the highways authorities.

The petitioner contended that the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, was in violation of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003. Specifically, he argued that the Highways Department’s response to his objections was not received before the enquiry was conducted, and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the Highways Department’s comments before the notification under Section 15(1) was issued.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The original writ petitioner, M. Mohan, challenged the land acquisition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, arguing that the procedure under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, was not followed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that there was substantial compliance with the procedure. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, further observing that Rule 5(2) and 5(3) of the Rules were inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act and therefore, to be ignored. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.

Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, outlines the procedure for land acquisition:

“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.
(2) 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. 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.”

Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, specifies the manner of publishing the public notice and the procedure to be followed when objections are raised:

“5. Manner of publication of the public notice. – Before publishing a notice under sub-section (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 sub-section 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;
(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 sub-section (3) of section 15;
(5) Where the enquiry is conducted by the Government, the Government will pass order under sub-section (3) of section 15;”

Arguments

The petitioner, M. Mohan, argued that the procedure under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, was not followed correctly. His submissions can be summarized as follows:

• Sub-submission 1: Before issuing a notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the State’s delegated authority must receive objections from the landowner (Rule 5(2)).
• Sub-submission 2: The State’s delegated authority must fix a date for hearing the objections and notify both the objector and the requisitioning authority (Highways Department) (Rule 5(2)).
• Sub-submission 3: A copy of the landowner’s objections must be forwarded to the requisitioning authority (Rule 5(2)).
• Sub-submission 4: On the date fixed for the enquiry, the State must hear the objector and the representative of the requisitioning authority, and record evidence (Rule 5(3)).
• Sub-submission 5: The requisitioning authority may submit an answer statement to the objections on or before the date fixed for the hearing (Rule 5(2)).

The petitioner contended that in his case, the enquiry was conducted before the Highways Department submitted its response to his objections. He also argued that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the Highways Department’s comments before the notification under Section 15(1) was issued.

The petitioner further submitted that the responses given by the requisitioning authority were identical and mechanical, showing non-application of mind. He also argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that Rules 5(2) and 5(3) were not in conformity with Section 15(2) of the Act and therefore not enforceable.

The State argued that the notification under Section 15(1) was issued after considering the Collector’s report on the objections and the response from the Highways Department. They contended that there was substantial compliance with the procedure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was whether the procedure followed for land acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, was valid, particularly concerning the handling of objections and the role of the Highways Department.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the land acquisition. The Court held that there was substantial compliance with Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.

The Court observed that the object of Rule 5(2) is to give an opportunity to the Highways Department to meet the objections raised by the landowners. The Court clarified that it is not mandatory for the Highways Department to file a statement of objections, and that failure to do so does not vitiate the acquisition process.

The Court held that the High Court was not correct in holding that Rule 5 was ultra vires.

The Court stated:

“…it is to be noted that Section 15 is a substantive provision which confers powers upon the authority to acquire the land…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.”

The Court further stated:

“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.”

The Court also stated:

“…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 shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001.”

The Court clarified that Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of substantial compliance with the law. The Court emphasized that the land owner was given a full opportunity to raise objections and that the enquiry was conducted as per the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The Court also noted that the Highways Department’s response was available to the authority before the notification was issued. The Court was also influenced by the fact that Rule 5(2) is not mandatory for the Highways Department to file a statement of objections.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Key Takeaways

• Substantial compliance with the procedure for land acquisition is sufficient, and minor deviations may not invalidate the process.
• The Highways Department’s response to objections is not mandatory, and the lack of such a response or its non-communication to the landowner does not vitiate the acquisition process.
• Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, is a procedural provision that supplements Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and is not inconsistent with it.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that substantial compliance with the procedure for land acquisition is sufficient, and minor deviations may not invalidate the process. The Court also clarified that the Highways Department’s response to objections is not mandatory. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, and its relationship with Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition, clarifying that the procedure followed was in substantial compliance with the law. The Court emphasized that the land owner was given sufficient opportunity to raise objections and that the Highways Department’s response was not mandatory. The judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for land acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.