The Supreme Court said that following a comprehensive procedure under environmental and forest laws to declare any land a national highway would be counterproductive.
The government may execute the 10 billion rupee Chennai-Salem eight-lane green highway project as the Supreme Court confirmed the notice issued for the land acquisition on Tuesday. The court, in its verdict, said that the Indian government and the Indian National Highways Authority can issue a notice on the land they wish to acquire for the project. Petitioners can voice their objections at a later stage and any environmental and forest clearing can then be challenged in the appropriate forums.
The Supreme Court noted that under the 1956 National Highways Law, the government does not require prior environmental or forest logging before expressing intention to acquire land. Authorization, according to the court, is only required “before actual work or execution of proposed work / project” or after the land is transferred to the NHAI. He has also said that the declaration of a previously new section as a national highway is valid. The third important point made by the court is that any alignment change, as was done in this case, can be done without environmental or forestry authorizations at this stage.
The court noted that Section 3 (A) of the 1956 Act which gave the central government the power to declare its intention to acquire land by notification in the official gazette if it is convinced that the land is necessary for construction, maintenance, administration. or operation of a national highway.
This is in direct contradiction to the Madras High Court ruling in April 2018, where a divisional court of judges TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan annulled the procurement procedure after holding that an environmental clearance was mandatory for the project. This ruling referred to a series of cases presented by defenders, farmers and politicians against the highway. PMK youth secretary Anbumani Ramadoss was also among those who moved the court.
The court has also disagreed with the petitioners and held that an authorized person who enters a land to carry out a survey, feasibility, etc. it is a one-time activity that is not intended for any exploitation and therefore no prior authorization is required.
However, the Supreme Court held that it was not expressing any opinion on the accuracy and validity of the permits / authorizations issued by the competent authorities under environmental and forestry laws.
“It would be open to the affected persons to question the validity of the same for the reasons, as it is permissible, before the corresponding forum. All disputes available to the parties in this regard remain open, “said the bench made up of judges AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai.
The superior court further added that paragraph 106 of the Superior Court ruling on the annulment of the entries in the income records that were mutated after the acquisition notification will be maintained. Mutation entries are entries in income records that indicate the transfer of title to a property. The Supreme Court agreed with the previous Superior Court ruling that records cannot be changed until the acquisition process is complete. Previously, the government had modified the registry after passing a notice regarding its intention to acquire the land.
The NHAI had argued in the Supreme Court that the Bharatmala Pariyojana was a project of “national importance” and therefore did not require prior environmental authorization and the SC agreed with this view. The 277-kilometer project, which is part of the Bharatmala Pariyojana scheme, aims to reduce travel time between Salem and Chennai to 2 hours and 15 minutes. However, strong opposition has emerged from various quarters, including farmers whose land was about to be acquired by the state government for the project. The project, according to the plan, will also cut down reserve forests and bodies of water.
For its part, the Supreme Court noted that if the government had to follow a comprehensive procedure under environmental laws and forest laws to declare any land as a national highway, such an approach would be counterproductive and the functioning of the departments responsible for the timely execution of such projects would be counterproductive. completely paralyzed and depend solely on the outcome of processes under environmental laws or forestry laws, as the case may be.
The Apex court eventually turned to the High Court for judicial interference in the acquisition matter. The order indicated that the High Court had completely ignored these crucial aspects and had entered the domain of the sufficiency and adequacy of the material, including the suitability of the route approved by the competent authority.
“This investigation, in exercise of judicial review, is prohibited. In addition, the Superior Court, despite noting that judicial interference in procurement matters is limited, began to intervene under the appearance of extraordinary circumstances obtained in this case. On careful reading, the contested sentence does not reveal any just circumstances to invoke the jurisdiction of judicial review, ”the Supreme Court affirmed.
.
