Under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, the Government considers objections; the enquiry officer need not recommend.

The petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for a proposed road connecting Madurai Ring Road to Old Thondi Road.

They objected, among other things, that alternative vacant land was available and that the proposed acquisition involved discrepancies in extent and omitted buildings.

The objections were heard on 5 June 2025; the Land Acquisition Officer later forwarded them to the Highways Department, whose remarks were subsequently received.

The Government overruled the objections and issued the final notification under Section 15(1).

Separate petitions challenged the rejection of objections by departmental officers; the Court treated W.P.(MD) No. 26109 of 2026 as challenging the Commissioner of Land Administration’s order dated 27 October 2025.

Whether the petitioners were denied the hearing required by Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and Rules 5(2)–(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003.

Whether the failure to obtain and provide the Highways Department’s remarks before the enquiry vitiated the acquisition process.

Whether the Government was required to give the landowners a further personal hearing before deciding their objections under Section 15(3).

Whether the acquisition notification was liable to be set aside because the proposed alignment allegedly failed to account for alternative land or because the enquiry officer did not independently assess the objections.

Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 requires the Government to call upon affected owners and interested persons to show cause before acquisition; under Section 15(3), the Government considers the objections and decides whether to proceed.

Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 provides for notice and an enquiry: under Rule 5(2), objections must be forwarded to the Highways Department, which may submit an answer; Rules 5(3)–(4) provide for hearing the objectors and forwarding the enquiry details to the Government.

The Court applied M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2022 SC 4085, holding that the Department’s response is not mandatory and need not be furnished to landowners.

It also distinguished Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which expressly requires the Collector to make recommendations, from the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, which imposes no such duty on the enquiry officer.

The attendance register showed that the petitioners had attended the enquiry or, in certain cases, were represented by a family member; the Court therefore rejected the claim that no hearing had occurred.

Although the objections were sent to the Highways Department after the enquiry, Rule 5(2) makes the Department’s response discretionary and contains no requirement to furnish it to the objectors; the Court considered M. Mohan dispositive on that point.

The enquiry officer had authority to conduct the hearing and forward the record, while the Government—not the officer—was responsible for deciding the objections under Section 15(3); the Act did not require a second hearing before the Government.

The Court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the experts who fixed the alignment, noting that the objections had been considered and rejected on the basis of the approved alignment and IRC guidelines.

W.P.(MD) No. 6050 of 2026 was also dismissed because the competent authority’s order had been challenged in W.P.(MD) No. 26109 of 2026, which the Court had dismissed.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.