THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT versus P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT versus P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that Parliament and the Central Government have competence under Entry 23, List I and the National Highways Act, 1956 (notably ss.2(2) and 3A) to declare and acquire open green-field land for national highways; notifications under ss.2(2) and 3A were not invalid for covering non‑existing roads. Prior environmental and forest clearances are required before commencement of actual construction (and before final vesting/use), but are not a precondition to the Central Government issuing s.2(2) or s.3A notifications; the time spent obtaining such clearances after a s.3A notification is to be excluded from the one‑year period in s.3D(3) (court stay interpretation under...

Parties
Appellant: The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit; Respondent: P.V. Krishnamoorthy and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (supreme Court Final Decision)
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; challenge to notifications under ss.2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 negatived; High Court judgment modified in part and its direction to restore prior mutation entries upheld
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence Under Entry 23, List I, Executive Power Under Article 257, National Highways Act, 1956 (ss.2(2), 3 a, 3 D), Requirement and Timing of Environmental and Forest Clearances, Public Hearing Under Acquisition Law, Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Judicial Review of Administrative/policy Decisions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Land Acquisition Environmental Law Statutory Interpretation Infrastructure / Public Works Law Legislative Competence Under Entry 23, List I Executive Power Under Article 257 +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit

Appellant

P.V. Krishnamoorthy and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (supreme Court Final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Parliament/Central Government may declare and acquire open green-field land as a national highway under s.2(2) and s.3A of the National Highways Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether notification under s.3A(1) of the 1956 Act requires prior environmental and/or forest clearance before issuance
  3. 3 Whether change of project stretch from Chennai-Madurai (Economic Corridor) to Chennai-Krishnagiri-Salem (National Corridor) was arbitrary or outside executive competence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Parliament and the Central Government have competence under Entry 23, List I and the National Highways Act, 1956 (notably ss.2(2) and 3A) to declare and acquire open green-field land for national highways; notifications under ss.2(2) and 3A were not invalid for covering non‑existing roads. Prior environmental and forest clearances are required before commencement of actual construction (and before final vesting/use), but are not a precondition to the Central Government issuing s.2(2) or s.3A notifications; the time spent obtaining such clearances after a s.3A notification is to be excluded from the one‑year period in s.3D(3) (court stay interpretation under...

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; challenge to notifications under ss.2(2) and 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 negatived; High Court judgment modified in part and its direction to restore prior mutation entries upheld

Orders

  • Civil appeals by Union of India and NHAI partly allowed
  • Civil appeal by land owners dismissed