Nearly two months after the Madras High Court quashed land acquisition for the proposed Salem-Chennai expressway, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on Friday appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision. Seeking interim relief in the case, the NHAI has requested that the SC stay the Madras High Court verdict in order to enable continuation of land acquisition proceedings and environmental impact assessment.
The Rs 10,000 crore ‘Chennai-Salem Greenfield Corridor’, under the Bharatmala Pariyojana, was proposed by the state government with the aim to cut down travel time between Chennai and Salem. Its sudden proposal, and prompt approval by the central government in February last year had raised eyebrows. Soon, the 277.30 km highway became mired in controversy with farmers and residents in the villages along the highway protesting against the loss of their agricultural land.
In its 117-page judgment in April, the Madras High Court had given a point-by-point rebuttal to the claims of the government, calling its benefits ‘illusory’. It also tore into the pre-feasibility report prepared for the project which was riddled with errors. In its appeal, however, the NHAI claims that stalling the project would affect all other infrastructure and development projects across the country under the Bharatmala Pariyojana. The NHAI also argued that the decision, if not stayed, would ‘cripple the economic activities of the country beyond redemption.’
The NHAI stated in its prayer, “Thus, if the impugned judgment is not stayed, it will result in a multiplicity of litigation in all such mega projects by mischievous litigants, and would thus cause adverse impact on the economic and overall development in all such projects on pan India basis... if the [relief is not granted], all the development projects such as road projects, railways, industrial projects, etc. in the country will need to get "prior environmental clearance" before the commencement of land acquisition process and that fresh Land Acquisition notifications will have to be issued for the projects which are already in the pipeline.” (sic)
The lower court had disagreed with the stand of the government to mutate revenue records and transfer government lands, even prior to the issuance of notification under the Land Acquisition Act. So it ordered the reversal of all mutated land records and communications issued to landowners within a period of two weeks. The NHAI claims in its appeal that this was ‘wholly erroneous’ on the part of the lower court. Pointing out that it had a 'good case on merits', the NHAI also said, “Because if the [relief is not granted], the land value will increase rapidly which will lead to huge increase in the land acquisition cost as the cutoff date for fixing the compensation is the date of publication of Section 3A(1) Notification of the Act. Therefore, the High Court by passing the [verdict] has set wrong precedent.”
With regard to conducting public hearing for the project, the NHAI claimed that such a stage had not been reached; however, the Madras High Court had relied on an earlier verdict that directed public hearings to be conducted before deciding to issue notification under the Land Acquisition Act.
In addition to questioning the benefits of the project, the High Court has asked about the methodology involved in mapping the length of the project, the existing routes widely used by the public, and the information given to affected farmers about their rights. However, the appeal by the NHAI stated, “The tenor of the impugned judgment conveys that the High Court got swayed away with the emotional stand taken by the [petitioners], rather than making an impartial and legal assessment of the issues involved in the economic development of the country.”