High Court quashes land acquisition for expressway in Tamil Nadu

The proposed eight-lane expressway between Chennai and Salem in Tamil Nadu “is vitiated on several grounds”, the Madras High Court observed recently while quashing the notifications issued for acquisition of land for the project under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act 1956.

The verdict brought all-round cheer to farmers and their families in those districts through which the road was to be laid. They celebrated it by bursting crackers and distributing sweets. Many even uprooted the project marker stones that had been forcefully erected in their fields by State government officials. 

The two-member special bench of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, while pronouncing its order on a batch of writ petitions filed by P.V. Krishnamoorthy, aggrieved farmers and others on April 8, declared that “the land acquisition proceedings are quashed” and instructed the government to reverse to the respective land owners  the land that had been acquired and transferred as “government lands” for the project.

Rejecting the claims of the State government that the entries were only temporary in nature and that in the event of the land getting excluded from the project the entries would stand reverted back, the court said that “all the entries in the revenue records, which stood mutated, shall be reversed in the names of the respective land owners and fresh orders be issued and communicated to the respective land owners within two weeks thereafter”. This direction, the court insisted, be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioners told the court that many of their “revenue records were mutated and stood transferred as government lands” even much before the issuance of the notification under Section 3D of the Act. The judges pointed out that “such an action could not have been initiated, as, by issuance of a Notification under Section 3A of the Act, the government only conveyed its intention to acquire the land”.

The Rs.10,000-crore 276-km Chennai-Salem highway project attracted heavy criticism from its conceptual stage onwards (Road and ruin) . The project, it was feared, would destroy thousands of acres of fertile land, water bodies, residential areas, wells, forest land and hills, besides the flora and fauna and the livelihoods of hundreds of farmers. The critics claimed that there were alternative highways in the State between these two cities and the new one would not ease the congestion.

The court rejected the contention of the State government that environmental clearance would be necessary only when the actual laying of the road began. The petitioners pointed out that while environmental clearance was pending, the government had authorised District Revenue Officers of the respective districts to initiate acquisition of land. The petitioners told the court that without prior environmental clearance no activity, including land acquisition, could be initiated. They argued that if the project was allowed without environmental clearance, it would violate the provisions of Article 19, 47, 48A and 51A of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the arguments, the bench said land acquisition proceedings for the project appeared to have been done in haste by officials of the State government. “This haste was manifest from various high-handed actions initiated by the officials. In such circumstances, need arose for this court to examine as to whether there is a gross error in the decision-making process, which according to the petitioners arose at the very threshold [stage] of the project,” the bench observed.

The judges pointed out that in a hurry the State government had lost sight of the fact that agriculture was the main part of the economy and source of livelihood of rural India. “The land of an agriculturist is vital to sustain his livelihood. India being predominantly an agricultural society, there is a strong bond between the landowner and his land. The land provides dignity for the person. It provides a source of livelihood. Therefore, any dent on this source of livelihood should be viewed with utmost seriousness,” they noted.

“If the State fails to do so, it will be failing in the public trust reposed on it. The State being the trustee is bound to protect life and livelihood of agriculturists. It is bound to protect the natural resources, the forest, flora and fauna. If there is failure to do so, it will result in disastrous consequences much of which will be irreversible. Therefore, in our view, the issue as to whether prior or post, environmental clearance is required to be decided on a case to case basis,” they said and wanted the project to be “processed with utmost dexterity.”

They told the State government to disclose the plans for rehabilitation and resettlement of several persons who were likely to be displaced from their residential homes or evicted from their agricultural land. “Peaceful protests were stifled, unwritten gag orders were promulgated, police force was used to handle the peaceful protesters, who were making a request to spare them and their land. Only after the court intervened these high-handed actions had subsided,” they noted.

The judges felt that prior environmental clearance was required before proceeding further. They were of the view that a more thorough study was required and the draft feasibility report, which spoke of “a town in China”, should not be "cut and paste" job.