Madras High Court invokes ‘public necessity’ maxim to order eviction of hundreds for Madurai airport expansion

Relying on the legal maxims “Necessitas publica est major quam private (Public necessity is greater than private interest)” and “Salus populi est suprema lex (Welfare of the people is the supreme law)”, the court said on February 7 that the government has acted in a reasonable manner.

Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan were hearing writ petitions filed by residents of Chinna Udaippu hamlet.

Govt granted additional compensation

• It is clear that the government has acted in a fair, reasonable, and magnanimous manner in granting additional compensation as per the Central Act, 2013, and also undertook to provide alternative house sites to the petitioners.
• The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not strictly applicable to the present acquisition proceedings.
• The government, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has extended the benefit of enhanced compensation in line with the principles embodied in the said central Act, 2013.
• However, despite receiving the compensation, the petitioners have continued to remain in possession of the property and have intentionally evaded vacating the premises.

• Therefore, the authorities issued the notice dated January 22, 2024, June 28, 2024, and October 28, 2024 for eviction.
• The same was opposed by the petitioner by filing the writ petition claiming rehabilitation and resettlement with a house and agricultural lands without any right under the 2013 Act.
• The acquisition proceedings had already been substantially completed in respect of more than 90 per cent of the lands much prior to 2010.
• The petitioners alone stalled the acquisition and prevented the authorities from taking possession of the remaining lands till the stay order granted by this court on November 20, 2024.

‘Abuse of process of law’

• In view of the pendency of the writ petitions and in order to address the grievances of the petitioners, the government, as a special measure and by way of equitable consideration, took a policy decision to allot two cents of developed land near the petitioners’ native village, Perungudi, and also undertook to assist in the construction of residential houses under a special rehabilitation scheme, ‘Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam’.
• Even as per the statements furnished by the petitioners themselves, none of the acquired lands were agricultural lands.
• There is absolutely no material placed before this court to establish that the petitioners were carrying on agricultural activities in the acquired lands or that their livelihood was dependent upon agricultural operations.
• On the contrary, the records reveal that the lands acquired from the petitioners were primarily house sites and residential houses measuring to a small extent.
• Therefore, this court finds no merit in the contention of the petitioners seeking allotment of two acres of land.

• Their continuous objection in preventing the taking over of possession in spite of the offering of the government to provide 2 cents of land, with further undertaking to construct the house under the special scheme, establishes their clear intention to obstruct the project without any bona fides under the guise of the caste with vested interest.
• This court finds every reason to reject the prayer of the writ petitioner to give resettlement and rehabilitation on the grounds that the petitioner continued to occupy the land even after receiving the compensation.
• Opposing the authorities to take over the possession under the guise of caste, is nothing but abuse of process of law and amounts to unjust enrichment and also justified the communication of the respondent to evict the petitioner by using force.

Eviction upheld

• The bench held that authorities were entitled to evict the occupants under Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, which permits the collector to take possession of acquired land and use necessary force if occupants refuse to vacate.
• With the dismissal of the writ petitions, the court cleared the way for authorities to proceed with the final phase of land acquisition and implement the long-pending Madurai Airport expansion project, aimed at upgrading the facility to an international airport.

Challenge to eviction for airport expansion

• The petitions were filed by residents belonging largely to the scheduled caste community.
• They sought to restrain authorities from evicting them from their homes and lands without providing rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• They also sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, were unconstitutional to the extent they allowed eviction without rehabilitation safeguards.
• The residents argued that around 350 families were living in the village, running small businesses and raising families there, and that authorities had issued eviction notices in January, June and October 2024 without ensuring adequate rehabilitation.

Airport project, land acquisition

• The state government had decided to acquire 633.17 acres of land across several villages in Madurai to upgrade the airport to international standards, with the cost shared equally between the Tamil Nadu government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
• Land acquisition proceedings began with a government order issued on August 5, 2008, followed by notifications in 2009 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
• According to the state, land belonging to more than 3,000 pattadars across six villages were acquired for the project, and over 90 per cent of the land had already been handed over to authorities.
• Only a small portion of land in the petitioners’ village remained to be taken over due to continued resistance from the occupants.

Govt’s stand

• The state argued that the acquisition process had been completed long before the 2013 central land acquisition law came into force, and therefore the petitioners could not claim rehabilitation benefits under the newer law.
• It also pointed out that most petitioners had already received compensation and that the government had, as a welfare measure, offered them.
• However, the residents rejected the offer and instead demanded five cents of land and two acres of agricultural land for each family as part of rehabilitation.