Tamil Nadu canal land acquisition upheld; court says NWDA approval and social-impact assessment were not required for the project.false

The petitioners, whose lands were proposed for acquisition, challenged notifications and consequential proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act”).

The acquisition was for a flood-carrier canal from Cauvery (Kattalai Barrage) to South Vellar, intended to divert floodwater and support water needs in drought-prone areas.

They argued, among other things, that the project required National Water Development Agency (“NWDA”) approval, lacked a social impact assessment, and suffered from procedural defects; they also questioned its feasibility, funding and timing.

The State maintained that the canal was a separate State project, that the acquisition process had been followed and that awards and compensation arrangements had proceeded.

The Court considered the challenges together and grouped the principal issues under NWDA approval, social impact assessment, and compliance with acquisition procedures.

1. Whether the canal project required NWDA approval and whether its absence invalidated the acquisition

2. Whether a social impact assessment was required for the acquisition, in addition to the environmental impact assessment relied on by the respondents

3. Whether alleged procedural non-compliance with the 2013 Act invalidated the acquisition proceedings

The Court considered the 2013 Act, including Sections 8, 11, 15, 16, 19 and 21, and the Tamil Nadu Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rules, 2017, including Rules 13 and 14.

Section 8 was discussed in relation to weighing project benefits against social costs and limiting displacement; Sections 11 and 15 concern preliminary notification and consideration of objections; and the later provisions govern rehabilitation and resettlement, declaration and notice stages of acquisition.

The Court stated that NWDA approval is required where a State project interferes with an NWDA project, but not for a distinct State project outside NWDA’s scope.

It cited no judicial precedents.

The Court relied on NWDA’s affidavit stating that the flood-carrier canal was formulated and implemented by Tamil Nadu, was distinct from the NWDA proposal, and fell outside NWDA’s role; it therefore found that NWDA approval was not required.

On social impact assessment, the Court accepted the respondents’ position that the project’s irrigation and broader water-management purposes, together with the environmental assessment and information included in the preliminary notification, meant a separate social impact assessment was unnecessary.

As to procedure, it relied on the counter-affidavit’s account of the acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement steps, declaration, notices, enquiry and award process.

It also noted that the petitioners had participated in the enquiry and that compensation had been provided for, and held that the alleged procedural defects did not justify setting aside the acquisition.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.