Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Notifications For Chennai-Salem 8 Lane Expressway

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the notifications issued for acquiring land for the Chennai-Salem eight-lane greenfield expressway project.Partly allowing the appeals of the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India, the top court reversed the Madras High Court judgment to the extent it quashed the land acquisition notifications.The Court said that it has negatived the challenge against the notifications issued under the National Highways Act.However, the top court has maintained the directions in paragraph 106 of the High Court judgment regarding the reversal of entries in the revenue records which stood mutated following the acquisition notification. Fresh notification proceedings need to be issued with respect to the acquisition of those lands.A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari delivered the judgment in the appeals filed by Central Government and the National Highway Authority of India(NHAI) against the Madras High Court judgment which quashed the notifications for acquisition of land for the highway project.The prime issue in the case was whether prior environmental clearance was necessary before acquiring lands for the highway project.Prior Environmental Clearance not needed for land acquisition notificationThe Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary for the Central Government or the National Highway Authority of India to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act.The prior environmental clearance is required to be taken before commencement of the "actual construction or building work" of the national highway by the executing agency (NHAI), the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed while allowing the appeal filed against the Madras High Court judgment which had quashed the notifications issued for acquiring land for the Chennai-Salem eight-lane greenfield expressway project.One of the issues considered by the High Court in this case was whether whether prior environmental clearance was imperative before issuing notifications under Section 3A(1) and at what stage of acquisition proceedings such environmental clearance ought to be made precondition? Answering it against NHAI, the High Court had held that the prior environmental clearance/ permission ought to have been obtained before issuance of notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act. Before the Apex Court, Centre contended that the High Court committed manifest error in concluding that such notifications under Section 3A of the 1956 Act could be issued only after prior environmental and forest clearances/permissions are granted in that behalf.The bench noticed that there is nothing in the NH Act or Rules which impels the Central Government to obtain prior environment clearance before exercise of that power and in issuing notification under Section 2(2), much less Section 3A expressing its intention to acquire the designated land. The court further noted that, as per 2006 EIA notification, the environmental/forest clearance is required to be obtained by the executing agency in terms of this notification "before commencing the actual work or executing the proposed work/project. The bench observed:"The land would vest in the Central Government under the 1956 Act only after publication of declaration of acquisition under Section 3D. And until then, the question of Central Government vesting it in favour of NHAI under Section 11 of the 1988 Act would not arise. However, until the vesting of the land, the Central Government and its authorised officer can undertake surveys of the notified lands by entering upon it in terms of Section 3B of the Act. Pertinently, the activities predicated in Section 3B are of exploration for verifying the feasibility and viability of land for 104 construction of a national highway. These are onetime activities and not in the nature of exploitation of the land for continuous commercial/industrial activities as such. There is remote possibility of irretrievable wide spread environmental impact due to carrying out activities referred to in Section 3B for assessing the worthiness of the land for using it as a national highway. Thus, the question of applying notification of 2006 at this stage does not arise, much less obligate the Central Government to follow directives thereunder.""On plain and harmonious construction of the provisions of the two enactments (i.e. the 1956 Act and the 1988 Act), it is amply clear that at the stage of issuing notifications under Section 2(2) or for that matter, Section 3A of the Act, there is no need to seek prior permission (by the Central Government) under environmental laws or the forest laws, as the...

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Notifications For Chennai-Salem 8 Lane Expressway

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition Notifications For Chennai-Salem 8 Lane Expressway

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers