In Brief
The petitioner, a land owner in Tamil Nadu, challenged the acquisition of his land for highway construction under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, claiming the procedure under Rule 5 of the Highways Rules, 2003 was violated because the Highways Department's response to his objections was not received before the enquiry hearing and not provided to him thereafter. The High Court had upheld the acquisition, noting substantial procedural compliance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 5 prescribes a permissive requirement for the Highways Department to file an answer ('may file', not 'shall file'), and non-receipt or non-furnishing of such response does not vitiate the acquisition if substantial statutory compliance exists. The Court clarified that Rule 5 is not inconsistent with the Act and cannot be ignored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.