The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a Tamil Nadu Government notification of December last year relating to acquisition of lands of Kodanad Tea Estate for providing a road for the residents of Annanagar and Kamaraj Nagar hamlets in Kodanad, The Nilgiris District.
In his order allowing a petition by the Kodanad Estate challenging the notification, Justice K.Chandru observed that the impugned order of December 31, 2010 “had showed an undue haste, lethargy and non-application of mind.” The State Government had not given any valid reason for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA). “This is especially in the context that they themselves were not sure about the extent of land to be acquired. They had also not inspected the property in question as per their own admission.”
By the impugned notification, issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, the State Government invoked the urgency clause and also dispensed with the enquiry under the LAA.
In the petition, the estate, represented by its Manager, S.Natarajan, sought to quash the notification as null and void.
The petitioner's counsel said there was no necessity to invoke either the urgency or the emergency clause. The order had been issued with mala fide intentions. The authorities were attempting to give continuous trouble to the estate in one form or the other. There was no public purpose involved in the acquisition, especially when the residents of the two hamlets were allowed to use the road.
In the counter, the authorities submitted that after considering the District Collector's proposal as well as the material and the request of the people of Annanagar and Kamarajar Nagar, the government decided to invoke the urgency clause. This was because the estate management had imposed “unreasonable restrictions” on the general public by imposing gate passes and collecting huge toll fees from poor agriculturists.
Mr. Justice Chandru said the estate's apprehension that keeping open the road at all times for all people, including vehicles, may cause prejudice to it could not be said to be wholly unreasonable or unjustified. If only the estate had been heard on this question and thereafter the government had decided the matter, it would have allayed the estate's fears.
A perusal of the pleadings and the original file showed that there was undue delay, which denied the State the invocation of the urgency clause. There was total non-application of mind in issuing the notification. Though the alleged mala fide was not attributed against any particular person in the government, certainly there was malice in law.
