Legal Battle Over Land Acquisition for Chennai-Salem Highway: Supreme Court Ruling Explained

The dispute surrounding the land acquisition for the Chennai-Salem Highway under the Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I project culminated in a landmark Supreme Court judgment. The case involved multiple appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the Union of India, and aggrieved landowners. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the government had the authority to acquire land under the National Highways Act, 1956, even when it involved non-existing roads or greenfield land.

Background of the Case

The government, as part of its ambitious Bharatmala Pariyojna – Phase I, had planned the Chennai-Salem Highway, an 8-lane greenfield expressway aimed at improving connectivity and reducing travel time between the two cities. However, the Madras High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings, citing environmental concerns, lack of proper feasibility studies, and the government’s failure to secure necessary clearances before issuing notifications under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, primarily landowners whose properties were to be acquired, argued that the notification issued under Section 3A of the 1956 Act was premature and void. They contended:

• The land acquisition was being carried out without obtaining environmental and forest clearances.
• The project had been altered from the originally proposed Chennai-Madurai Economic Corridor to the Chennai-Salem National Corridor without sufficient justification.
• The existing road infrastructure was adequate, and there was no necessity for a new highway.
• The government failed to conduct a proper public consultation and feasibility study before finalizing the project.

Respondents’ Arguments

The NHAI and the Union of India, in their defense, maintained that:

• The project was part of a national policy to improve road infrastructure and was backed by expert analysis.
• The land acquisition process under the 1956 Act was independent of environmental clearance requirements, which could be obtained later.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that policy decisions by the government should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or mala fide.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, addressed several pivotal legal questions:

1. Legislative Competence: The Court upheld the validity of Section 2(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which allows the central government to declare any stretch of land as a national highway, even if it was not previously a state highway.
2. Environmental Clearances: The Court ruled that environmental and forest clearances were not a prerequisite for issuing a land acquisition notification under Section 3A. However, these clearances must be obtained before starting actual construction work.
3. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions: The Court reaffirmed that decisions related to national highway development fall within the domain of executive policy. Unless proven to be arbitrary or lacking in public interest, courts should not intervene.
4. Landowners’ Rights: While acknowledging that landowners had a right to be heard, the Court held that their grievances should be addressed through the objections process under Section 3C rather than through outright quashing of land acquisition notifications.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court’s decision and upheld the validity of the government’s land acquisition process. The ruling clarified that the state governments must facilitate land acquisition for projects of national importance and that objections should be dealt with under the statutory framework rather than judicial intervention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case reinforces the principle that infrastructure projects of national significance should not be unduly delayed by procedural challenges unless there is a clear violation of legal or constitutional provisions. While landowners’ rights remain protected under the law, the judgment establishes that national highway projects must proceed efficiently while complying with environmental and legal requirements.

Petitioner Name: The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit.
Respondent Name: P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A. M. Khanwilkar.
Place Of Incident: Chennai-Salem, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 08-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Project Director vs P.V. Krishnamoorthy Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category