Chennai-Salem highway: Madras HC says necessary to 'allay all fears' of landowners in danger of being dispossessed for project

Chennai: The Madras high court on Tuesday restrained the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government from dispossessing people of their lands to be acquired for the proposed eight-lane highway project between Salem and Chennai till further orders. A division bench comprising Justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan passed the interim order on a batch of petitions opposing the Rs 10,000 crore Greenfield project and posted them to 11 September for further hearing. [caption id=“attachment_5015451” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. PTI[/caption] “The respondents are directed not to dispossess the respective landowners from the land in question, which they propose to acquire until further orders in these writ petitions,” the order stated. The bench, which went through pamphlets issued by the Kancheepuram District Collector in support of the project, noted that while various benefits of the highway had been highlighted, there was “absolutely no whisper about” the assurance given to land-owners that they will not be forcibly dispossessed of their lands. The project, which aims to halve the travel time between the two cities, is facing opposition from some quarters, including a section of farmers whose lands are proposed to be acquired. The court said, “We deem it appropriate that we clarify the aspect which has been placed before us by the learned Advocate General so that it will allay all the fears of the landowners and the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings in whatever manner done could be heard and decided on merits and in accordance with law.” This was done considering the fact and the sensitivity of the matter and the category of persons from whom the lands were proposed to be acquired, it said. Earlier, former Union minister and PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss, who is one of the petitioners, said farmers and people feel that the project was made to look attractive on the surface-reading of the benefits claimed by the Central and state governments. He claimed that implementation of the project was bound to affect the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It is feared they are likely to be thrown out of their land, leaving them in the lurch and rendering them landless, homeless and making them labourers for life, the counsel for Ramadoss submitted. State Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that the project was still in the early stages and there was no imminent threat of dispossession of the landowners. Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan opposed one of the petitions seeking to declare as unconstitutional section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the IV Schedule to the Act as well as the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act for the project. He questioned the locus-standi of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a landowner. The petitioner, “Poovulagin Nanbargal” (friends of earth), an NGO, has contended that the section and the schedule were discriminatory.