8-year fight ends, MRTS to get St Thomas Mount link

Justice N Seshasayee on dismissing their pleas said, “It must be recorded that the anxiety of the petitioners to save their lands from acquisition has met its match in the attitude of the government authorities, which ranged anywhere from being lackadaisical to being indifferent, if the sporadic acts of seriousness in taking the project forward is ignored. The result: A dispute that ought to have concluded at least three years ago has become a nursery for litigations.”

Out of the five kms providing a link to suburban services and Metro Rail trains to Chennai commuters, about 98% of the work covering 4.5 km had been completed. But what remains to be completed is about 0.5 km which involved acquisition of private lands which is challenged in the present pleas.

The State had issued a government order in 2010 regarding the project. But since then many pleas have been moved challenging the acquisition process.

The High Court had dismissed the pleas with directions to the authorities to follow procedures under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.

MRTS: HC judge pulls up officials for delay
Dismissing the 40 pleas challenging land acquisition for the long-pending Velachery-St Thomas Mount extension of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS), Justice N Seshasayee of the Madras High Court pulled up the authorities for their failure to follow legal process, which led to a series of lawsuits, including the present batch.
 
“There has been an utter lack of professionalism in ignoring a critical factor that affects the discharge of statutory responsibility, such as the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act,” the court said, noting that despite the court’s direction to issue notices under the Right to Fair Compensation Act in 2014, it was puzzling that notices were wrongly issued under the old Act.

Justice Seshasayee pointed out that every year that the project was delayed, the cost escalation was about five to six per cent, and added: “Who pays this differential cost? Aren’t we, the people of this country, who pay it? And are we not called upon to pay for the lapses of the unprofessional authorities?”

Terming their attitude as an over-ambitious pursuit, the court said the petitioners have gambled on the statute. But their optimism, perhaps founded on earlier successes, appears to have deserted them this time, the judge added, “Plainly, they appear to be keen to hold the entire project to ransom, and create causes out of their ingenuity to defeat the public purpose behind the project.”
If they felt the compensation was inadequate, they could pursue the remedy available to them under the Act, he said.