Latest News
Back
Document:
Land Acquisition Notifications For Chennai – Salem 8 Lane Expressway Upheld by The Supreme Court
In the case of Project Director, Project Implementation Unit vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors, the Supreme Court has upheld the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act 1956, for acquiring land for the Chennai – Salem eight-lane Greenfield expressway.
The Central Government and the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court quashing the notifications of acquisition of land for the highway project. The central issue in the case was whether advance environmental clearance was required ahead of acquiring lands for the highway project. The three-judge of Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary for the responsible authorities (Central government or the National Highway Authority of India) to apply for preceding environmental clearances.
It was noted that environmental clearances are not required to be obtained until the stage of releasing a notification under Section 2(2) and Section 3A of the National Highways Act. This clearance has to be taken only prior to the initiation of the ‘actual construction’ of the project under these notifications.
It was also observed that the competent authority under the environmental laws has a limited role to scrutinize the formal project placed before them for their consideration. This has to be done before its implementation by the executing agency. The onus is on these authorities to ascertain whether there would be any environmental impact on the implementation of this project and impose the necessary remedial steps or mitigating measures while also adhering to the state’s obligation of achieving sustainable development.
The Madras High Court earlier quashed the notification for the acquisition of the land for the highway on the claims that prior environmental clearance under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 was indispensable. The High Court deemed the clearance mandatory as there were large areas of fertile agricultural lands and forest area under this notification that would have to be acquired for the construction. It was also noted that authorities did not mention adequate rehabilitation and resettlement measures to the persons who were prone to displacement due to the project.
The Apex Court, as a result, has only partly allowed the appeal of the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India.
Document:
