The Madras High Court has upheld the orders of the authorities concerned to acquire lands owned by private persons and bodies in Chennai, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur districts in Tamil Nadu for laying an outer ring road and providing various amenities.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan upheld the acquisition orders on Tuesday, while dismissing a batch of writ petitions from Dr D Anand and others challenging the government move.
“Overall, the respondents had duly followed the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 and the Rules for acquiring lands for the purpose of the Chennai outer ring road development work including project facilities such as interchanges, bus bays, truck lay byes, junction improvements, wayside amenities, major and minor junction improvements etc. These facilities are only part and parcel of the project road amenities and it is one of the facilities provided for the outer ring road phase-I,” the judge said and dismissed the petitions as without merits.
The state government had earlier decided to form an outer ring road joining the southern, western and northern parts of Chennai city for a total length of 60.15 km road being constructed in two phases around the Chennai Metropolitan area.
Lands were subsequently acquired for the first phase and taken possession of to a length of 29.65 km in Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur districts.
For this purpose, the Highways and Minor Ports (HH-2) department on December 4, 2012 had accorded administrative sanction for acquisition of private lands and transfer of government lands for providing project various facilities in Chennai outer ring road, phase-I under the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 framed thereunder and appointed the District Revenue Officer (LA), ORR, Chennai as the Land Acquisition Officer to perform the functions of the government/Collector.
Accordingly, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition published notice under Section 15(2) of the Act on May 26, 2013 and also in the localities on May 29, 2013 as required under Rule 5 of the Rules. The entire acquisition proceedings have been challenged under these writ petitions on various grounds.