Summary
Chennai land was acquired under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for grade separators. The landowner argued that Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 was breached because the inquiry on his objections was held before the Highways Department replied, and the reply was never given to him. The High Court found substantial compliance, but the Division Bench also said Rule 5 conflicted with Section 15(2) and should be ignored. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions. The Department's reply under Rule 5(2) is optional and protects the Department, so its absence or non-supply does not vitiate the acquisition. Rule 5 is not inconsistent with Section 15(2).
Issues
- Whether an acquisition notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 is vitiated because the inquiry on the owner's objections was held before the Highways Department replied and the reply was not supplied to the owner
- Whether Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 is inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act
Provisions considered
- Section 15, Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001The owner's objections were called for and considered before the Section 15(1) notification issued, and this was held to comply substantially with the section. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 6)
- Rule 5(2) and 5(3), Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003Rule 5 is procedural. The Department 'may' answer the objections, and nothing requires the answer to be given to the owner. (¶¶ 5.1, 7)
Held
- Section 15 is the substantive power to acquire, and Rule 5 is procedural. Under Rule 5(2) the Highways Department 'may' answer the owner's objections. The answer is optional, gives the Department an opportunity to be heard, and need not be supplied to the owner. (¶ 5.1)
- The Department's failure to answer the objections before the inquiry, or the failure to give its answer to the owner, does not vitiate the acquisition or the Section 15(1) notification. (¶ 5.1)
- The owner had full opportunity to object, an inquiry was held, and the Department's answer was before the authority before the notification issued. There was substantial compliance with Section 15 read with Rule 5. (¶ 6)
- The vires of Rule 5 was not in issue, so the Division Bench should not have treated it as inconsistent with Section 15(2) and to be ignored. Rule 5 is not inconsistent with Section 15(2), although the acquisition was rightly upheld. (¶ 7)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed; the acquisition was upheld, but the Division Bench's view that Rule 5 conflicts with Section 15(2) was disapproved.