Chennai: Decks have been cleared for the implementation of a Rs 28 crore project for the construction of a pedestrian subway bridge beneath the railway track near Chromepet station, with the Madras high court dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities 6 years back for the project.
Justice N.Seshasayee dismissed a batch of over 25 petitions filed by the residents of Radha Nagar Main Road at Kullanchavadi within Pallavaram Municipality, whose lands were sought to be acquired for the project.
The judge said the primary argument which consumed considerable time during hearing was on the advisability of constructing the subway at an alternate locality. As rightly argued by Special government pleader C.Thirumaran, this is beyond the scope of judicial review, unless the acquisition itself is tainted in malafide. There however, is no allegation of malafide exercise of administrative power and therefore this ground fails without a need for scrutiny of merits.
At the end of the day, the government and the experts who advice it, are the best judges in conceiving a project, its design and location and the courts cannot interfere with their judgment easily. And today, another project linking the subway beneath the GST road with the present project has come up, and that the other project has been completed, and therefore, the entire project has reached a stage from where it cannot be rolled back, the judge added.
The judge said all the petitioners have not only participated in the enquiry under section15 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, but also received notices under section 19 for participating in the enquiry for passing the award.
That many of them have absented or chosen not to participate in the said enquiry might be their choice, but the fact remains, that they knew that it was happening.
It was only when they were issued notices under section 16 for surrendering the possession, issued after the passing of the award, did they approach this court with these petitions, challenging the very acquisition.
Plainly it was a strategy that appears to have been developed long after acquisition proceedings have crossed all stages. There was an obvious delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the court, which literally, consumes any alleged cause for their current action, the judge added.
