Facts
The Petitioner challenged an order dated 07.10.2024 issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) directing him to vacate a property in Varadarajapuram Village, Tiruvallur District
Source reference: p. 1-2The Petitioner claimed absolute ownership based on a sale deed executed in 2012 and a subsequent patta transfer
Source reference: p. 2The NHAI and State Authorities contended that the land had already been acquired in 2005 under the National Highways Act for the widening of NH-48
Source reference: p. 2-3An award was passed in 2006, and compensation was deposited with the competent authority
Source reference: p. 3The authorities argued that the Petitioner's vendor suppressed the fact of acquisition when selling the land to the Petitioner in 2012
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner has a valid legal right to the subject property purchased after the conclusion of land acquisition proceedings
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the impugned vacation order passed by the NHAI is unlawful or arbitrary
Source reference: p. 2, 5Law Applied
The Court applied the National Highways Act, 1956, specifically regarding the vesting of land in the Central Government. Under the Act, once a 3-D(1) notification is published in the Gazette, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances
Source reference: p. 4The Court invoked the National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, which provides for the eviction of unauthorized occupants and the removal of illegal constructions from highway land
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court found that the acquisition proceedings were completed in 2005, and the 3-D(1) notification was published on 12.07.2005. Consequently, by operation of law, the land vested with the Central Government long before the Petitioner purchased the property in 2012
Source reference: p. 3-4The Court noted that any sale deed executed after the date of vesting is illegal and does not confer title upon the purchaser
Source reference: p. 4Since the land was already National Highway property, the Petitioner’s possession was deemed unauthorized, and the NHAI was legally entitled to issue an order to vacate under the 2002 Act
Source reference: p. 5The Court observed that the Petitioner’s remedy, if any, lies in claiming compensation rather than challenging the acquisition or seeking possession
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Petitioner has no right over the acquired lands as the purchase was made post-acquisition
The Court upheld the NHAI's order to vacate but granted liberty to the Petitioner or the entitled person to approach the authorities for the settlement of compensation, which must be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law
Source reference: p. 5No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
MR.M.PAULPANDIANvsTHE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIRECTOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in