Justice M.Sundar and Justice Hemanth Chandangoudar, and the counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 28(2)(ii) of Tamilnadu State Highway Act, 2001 its mandatory for the Government to pass an order for the explanation given by the petitioner for issuance of Demolition notice to the petitioner,

[09/08, 13:23] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxCJN9MZD34HRr7qgJ0UpwGPUtvNuGAg6A?si=8InW9cpeKmuGW6bZ
[09/08, 13:25] Sekarreporter: I.CALVIN JONES
Mohamed Imran
For
Ajmal Associates
(Counsel for Petitioner)

Writ Petition filed challenging the Demolition notice passed by the Asst Divisional Engineer State Highway Department. While, the petitioner Mr. Rajkumar after recipt of the notice gave a reply within 7 days time as contemplated in the TamilNadu Highway Act, 2001, but without considering the reply of Mr.Rajkumar, The Asst Divisional Engineer of the Highway Department proceeded to demolish the property of the petitioner. Agrived by the action of the Government petitioner filed a Writ petition through thier counsel I.Calvin Jones and Mohamed Imran for Ajmal Associates, and the matter was heard by the Division Bench comprising of Justice M.Sundar and Justice Hemanth Chandangoudar, and the counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 28(2)(ii) of Tamilnadu State Highway Act, 2001 its mandatory for the Government to pass an order for the explanation given by the petitioner for issuance of Demolition notice to the petitioner, before Demolitioning the building, further the counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned Demolition notice did not have the details of Survey number or any particulars of the land, and further its the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained building aproval from the Government and even the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner from the Government Bank. While, the Respondent Government submits that petitioner Patta is forged and fabricated and he has constructed a building in Paramboke land, and hence the petitioner building was demolished. Further, the Counsel of the petitioner submits that, in that case the Government should have passed an order on merit for the reply given by the petitioner before demolishing the petitioner property since the procedure adopted by the petitioner is illegality violating section 28(2)(ii) TamilNadu Highway Act,2001. Hence, the Court directs both the petitioner and Government to produce all the documents and found prima facie that the land belongs to Government as per A register and finds the petitioner was a victim of purchasing Government land from its Vendor. However, court gave liberty to the petitioner to file a suit against the petitioner Vendor who sold the land and further gave liberty to file a case against Government to recover actual cost of damages of the property from the Government since the respondent Government demolished the property without following the due process as contemplated under the Act.
Further, the Court directed the Respondent Government to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner and recover the same from the ofiicer who issued notice and demolished the petitioner’s property .

Further, the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court framed a guideline to be followed before Demolition.
(i) When notices akin to notice under Section 28 of said Act are issued (when we say notices akin to Section28, we refer to notices under similar provisions in other statutes such as Section 128 of Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil ‘the Tamil Nadu UrbanNadu Act 9 of 1999)'{hereinafter ‘TNULB Act’ for the sake of brevity} etc.,;
(ii) The lands in which alleged encroachments are said to have been made should be described with clarity and specificity giving survey number, geographicallocation with accuracy to the extent possible etc., sothat there is no dificulty for the noticees in localizing, identifying and understanding the lands with regard to which the notices have been issued;

(iii) When notices akin to Section 28 are responded to by noticees by way of representation/response within the time limit prescribed in the statute, the same have to be duly considered by the Authority concerned andorders have to be made.
(iv) Orders made in the aforesaid manner should beserved on the noticees under due acknowledgment;