LI NETWORK
The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices A M Khanwilkar, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari has upheld the notifications issued for acquiring land for the Chennai-Salem eight-lane greenfield expressway project.
The Apex Court reversed the Madras High Court judgment partly allowing the appeals of the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India. It quashed the land acquisition notifications.
The three-judge bench gave the judgment in the appeals filed by the Central Government and the NHAI (National Highway Authority of India) against the Madras High Court judgment, which negated the notifications for the acquisition of land for the highway project.
The Court said that it annulled the challenge against the notifications issued under the National Highways Act.
However, the top court has held the directions in paragraph 106 of the High Court judgment about the reversal of entries in the revenue records, which stood altered following the acquisition notification.
Fresh notification proceedings need to be issued concerning the acquisition of those lands.
On April 8, 2019, the Madras High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings for the 277 kilometers proposed highway passing through agricultural as well as reserve forest land.
The vital issue in the case was whether earlier environmental clearance was needed before receiving lands for the highway project.
A division bench of Justices T S Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan of the High Court held that that prior environmental clearance under the Environment Protection Act 1986 was necessary before acquiring land under the National Highways Act.
The bench dismissed the arguments put forth by the Centre, Tamil Nadu government, and National Highway Authority of India that environmental clearance was not needed to acquire the land for highway construction.
The Court termed this argument – “putting the cart before the horse.”
The High Court said that prior environmental clearance must be required “before the respondents proceed further, pursuant to the notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act.”
The Court said that the issue has to be addressed by applying the “public trust doctrine” according to which the State holds public land and resources at the trust for benefit of people.
The Court stressed the fact that the acquisition will affect large tracts of fertile farmlands.
The respondent had not revealed the suggested plans for rehabilitation and resettlement of people who will get displaced, the Court noticed.
The High Court also said that the respondents did not mention the plans to rehabilitate and resettle the persons who would be displaced.
The High Court noted that the Green Field Highway consisting of a closed toll policy system was difficult to access for a common man.
The High Court also found defects with the tender process followed by NHAI for appointing the project consultant, which prepared the feasibility report and detailed project report.
The tender was issued for another project, but the consultant was assigned the project work of the Chennai-Salem project with no written orders.
The Court noted from a consideration of the report and other factors, that the project report was carried out with “great haste.”
The Court also observed that the project report had a “cut-paste” approach, as there were references to Bangalore and a town in China in the report.