Dismissed

Viswanathan v. the National Highway Authority of India

Madras HC6 Dec 2021CRP/2748/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a plaintiff's civil suit for title declaration regarding land classified as a National Highway. The High Court held that Section 15 of the Control of National Highways Act bars the suit as the Tribunal alone has jurisdiction under Section 14 to entertain appeals against actions taken under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition filed under Article 227 was dismissed; the plaintiff is at liberty to move the Tribunal.

Viswanathan Vs the National Highway Authority of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.12.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

Viswanathan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The National Highway Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Rep. By its Regional Officer, SRI Towers, 3^rd Floor, DP-34(SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer, National Highways, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Vridachalam Taluk, Vridachalam, Cuddalore District.

¶13

4.The Chief Engineer, National Highways Government of Tamil Nadu, Cuddalore District.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶18

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 15.11.2021 made in 19.R.No.107/2021 in UN O.S.No.Nil of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jaremiah

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint, in an attempted abuse of process of Court by way of a suit.

¶23

2. The plaintiff is in occupation of land which is classified as National

¶24

Highway. When proceedings were taken for eviction of the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.21436 of 2019 challenging the said notice. On 14.02.2020, this Court, directed the 2^nd defendant in the suit viz., Assistant Engineer, National Highways, Chidambaram to survey the entire property and decide if there is any encroachment and thereafter remove the encroachment.

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶28

3. Pursuant to the said order, on 01.04.2021, the 2^nd defendant issued notice to the plaintiff seeking objections. The plaintiff has submitted his objections on 08.04.2021. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and came up with the instant suit seeking declaration of his title on the ground that he has perfected title by adverse possession. A mandatory injunction restraining the defendants to mutate the revenue records in respect of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff was also prayed for apart from seeking costs.

¶29

4. The learned District Munsif on a meaningful reading of the plaint held that the suit is barred in view of Section 15 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. Section 14 of the said Act vest jurisdiction in a Tribunal to entertain appeals or orders passed or actions taken under Sections 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of the said Act by the Highways Administration or an Authorised Officer. Section 15 of the Act bars the suit in respect of the matters over which the Tribunal is invested with the jurisdiction to decide. Section 26 provides for eviction of unauthorised occupation in land which has been classified as National

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶33

Highways.

¶34

5. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that since the land in question is classified as a National highways and notice has been issued to the plaintiff requiring him to vacate and handover possession under Section 26, the plaintiff will have to pursue the said action, he cannot seek a declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession.

¶35

6. Mr.G.Jaremiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶36

vehemently contend that the suit for declaration cannot be said to be barred.

¶37

7. While it is open to the plaintiff to defend the action taken under Section 26, the plaintiff cannot approach a civil Court to scuttle the action. The purpose of the bar enacted under Section 14 is only to prevent unscrupulous litigants from invoking the jurisdiction of the civil Court to scuttle the proceedings under a special enactment.

¶38

8. I therefore, do not see any error in the order of the District Munsif,

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶42

the revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed . No costs. The plaintiff is at liberty to move the Tribunal.

¶43

06.12.2021

¶44

dsa Internet :Yes Index : No Speaking order

¶45

¶46

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶50

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶51

dsa

¶52

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2748 of 2021

¶53

06.12.2021

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Viswanathan v. the National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswanathan v. the National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swetha Vs a.Varun

Chandra Viswanathan Vs M/S.Jayaliquors and Restaurant

Veeramuthu Vs Madhivanan

V.Balakrishnan Vs v.Srinivasan

Ranganayaki Vs Krishnan

Umar Parook Vs Mohammed Husaimul Asif