Madras HC lets NHAI acquire land for promotion of road safety

A bench of justices G R Swaminathan and M Jothiraman passed the order on the appeals filed by the Union Highways Ministry and NHAI in 2021.
Madurai Bench of Madras High court
Madurai Bench of Madras High court(File Photo | Express)
Updated on
2 min read

MADURAI: Observing that advocating for road safety is also one of the statutory functions of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the same would fall under the category ‘public purpose’, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently set aside an order passed by a single judge quashing the land acquisition notification issued by NHAI for its ‘Road Safety Advocacy Project’ for a 30-km stretch between Madurai and Kanniyakumari in March 2018.

A bench of justices G R Swaminathan and M Jothiraman passed the order on the appeals filed by the Union Highways Ministry and NHAI in 2021. The standing counsel for NHAI claimed that the highways authority is obliged to promote road safety since accidents are common on highways, which is why it conceived of such a project. He also added that compensation would be paid to land owners under the central act of 2013, he added.

However, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the land acquisition notification could be issued only for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway.

“There is no provision in the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, to the effect that NHAI can undertake projects for spreading road safety awareness,” he added. Moreover, the two notifications issued for the project are differently worded and are vague, he alleged.

Road safety advocacy part of NHAI’s functions: HC

Hearing both sides, the judges observed that the primary function of NHAI is to properly manage and operate the national highways vested with it, which includes road safety. They therefore concluded that setting up road safety advocacy would fall within the statutory functions of NHAI.

The judges also rejected the petitioner’s contentions that the notifications were confusing or vague and allowed the appeals.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com