Partly allowed

National Highways Authority v. T.Chakrapani

Madras HC10 Nov 2022WA/2358/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed writ appeals filed by NHAI. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, the court held that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional. Consequently, the writ petitions securing a declaration against Section 3J were allowed, while challenges to other provisions were upheld.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; writ petitions challenging Section 3J of the National Highways Act allowed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

National Highways Authority Vs T.Chakrapani — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and

¶7

W.P.No.19883 of 2010

¶8

and

¶9

W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010 and

¶10

M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2011 in W.A.Nos.2358 to 2388 of 2011 M.P.Nos.2 to 2 of 2011 in W.A.Nos.2359 to 2388 of 2011 M.P.No.1 of 2010, M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.19883 of 2010 M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 in W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 in W.P.(MD) No.5833 of 2008,

¶11

In W.A.No.2358 of 2011 :

¶12

National Highways Authority of India Rep by its Project Director No.1/54-28 Butt Road St.Thomas Mount Chennai - 600 016. .... Appellant in WA.No.2358 of 2011

¶13

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶15

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶16

1.T.Chakrapani 2.T.Govindaraja Naidu 3.Elumalai Achari 4.V.Chithambaram 5.K.Velayutham 6.K.Saravanan 7.Ranganayagi

¶17

8.Union of India Rep by Secretary National Highways Department New Delhi.

¶18

9.The Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Shipping (Road Transport & Highways) New Delhi.

¶19

10.The District Collector (Arbitrator Tiruvallur District) Tamil Nadu.

¶20

11.The Competent Authority (LA) NH-4 Via Nerkundram Village Poonamallee Tiruvallur District Chennai - 56.

¶21

12.The Special Tahsildar (LA) NH-4 Poonamallee Tiruvallur District Chennai - 56.

¶22

.... Respondents 1 to 10 in WA.No.2358 of 2011

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶24

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶25

In W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007 :

¶26

1.V.Thirumeninathan

¶27

2.V.Ramasamy

¶28

3.R.Subramanian

¶29

4.S.Radha Krishnan

¶30

5.Saraswathi

¶31

6.Rajendran

¶32

7.Senthil Kumar

¶33

8.Kannan

¶34

9.Manikandan

¶35

10.T.Jayaparvathy

¶36

11.T.Jothiram

¶37

12.Hema

¶38

.... Petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007

¶39

[Petitioners P5 to P9 substituted as LRs of deceased third petitioner vide order dated 10.11.2022 made in WMP.No.26740 of 2017 in WP(MD) No.9768 of 2007]

¶40

[Petitioners P10 to P12 substituted as LRs of deceased first petitioner vide order dated 10.11.2022 made in WMP.No.19381 of 2022 in WP(MD) No.9768 of 2007] .... Petitioners 1 to 4 in W.P.No.9768 of 2007

¶41

¶42

1.The Union of India

¶43

Rep by Secretary to Government Ministry of Shipping Surface Transport and Highways Department

¶44

New Delhi.

¶45

2.The Competent Authority cum Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) National Highways, Virudhunagar.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶47

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶48

3.The Project Officer National Highways Authority of India Madurai.

¶49

4.The District Collector cum Arbitrator under National Highways Act Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar. ...Respondents in W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007

¶50

Prayer in W.A.No.2358 of 2011 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.15699 of 2008 dated 04.03.2011.

¶51

Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the provisions of Sections 3E, 3G, 3H and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 as amended as arbitrary, invalid, unconstitutional and hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

¶52

In W.A.No.2358 of 2011

¶53

For Appellant : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Associates

¶54

For Respondents : Mr.David Thyagarajan for RR1 to 7 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader for RR10 to 12 RR8 & 9 - No appearance

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶56

In W.P.(MD) No.9768 of 2007

¶57

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶58

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶59

For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Associates for R3 Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader for RR2 to 4 R1 - No appearance

¶60

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶61

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN.J]

¶62

The writ appeals arise out of writ petitions in which vires of Section 3J of

¶63

the National Highways Act, 1956 was challenged. The writ petitions were allowed by the writ Court. In the above writ petitions also, the same provision namely Section 3J and other provisions of the National Highways Act are under challenge.

¶64

Mr.Richardson Wilson of M/s.Wilson Associates, learned counsel

¶65

appearing for National Highways Authority would fairly submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Singh and Others [(2019) 9 SCC 304], upheld the view of the writ Court and held that the Section

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶67

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶68

3J of National Highways Act is ultra vires of the Constitution and the compensation should be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No.1/1984).

¶69

In view of the said pronouncements, all the writ appeals will stand dismissed and the writ petitions will stand allowed only in respect of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, alone, and the other provisions of the National Highways Act, which are under challenge in these writ petitions are upheld . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶70

[RSMJ] [KBJ] 10.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8

¶72

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶73

To:

¶74

1.Union of India Rep by Secretary National Highways Department New Delhi.

¶75

2.The Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Shipping (Road Transport & Highways) New Delhi.

¶76

3.The District Collector (Arbitrator Tiruvallur District) Tamil Nadu.

¶77

4.The Competent Authority (LA) NH-4 Via Nerkundram Village Poonamallee Tiruvallur District Chennai - 56.

¶78

5.The Special Tahsildar (LA) NH-4 Poonamallee Tiruvallur District Chennai - 56.

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8

¶80

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶81

R.SUBRAMANIAN. J., and KUMARESH BABU.J., ds

¶82

W.A.No.2358 to 2388 of 2011 and W.P.No.19883 of 2010 and W.P.(MD) Nos.9768 of 2007, 5833 of 2008, 6039 of 2008, and W.P.(MD) No.131 and 6250 of 2010

¶83

10.11.2022

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8

National Highways Authority v. T.Chakrapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Highways Authority v. T.Chakrapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkateshwara Vs Tmt.S.Jayandhi

M.Sheik Ameer, Vs The Secretary

Mr. Sp.Thyagarajan Vs Executive Engineer

Vijayapandian Vs The Tamilnadu State Human Rights

V.Sumathi Vs The State Human Rights Commission

V.Thirumeninathan (died) Vs The Union of India