The Madras High Court has overturned the Chennai Metro Rail Limited’s (CMRL) decision to acquire a portion of land belonging to United India Insurance Company for the construction of the Thousand Lights Metro Station. The court ruled that the decision to alter the station’s location, which was originally planned within the premises of a nearby temple, was taken without consulting the insurance company and violated the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice.
The CMRL had issued a notice to the insurance company to acquire 837 square meters of its land, but the company was not given an opportunity to be heard, despite having invested over Rs 250 crore in constructing its head office on the premises. The court held that the land acquisition notice was a mere formality to justify a premeditated decision and that the petitioner’s legitimate expectations were violated.
The court also emphasized that the principle of promissory estoppel binds government agencies to their commitments and prevents them from arbitrarily rescinding assurances given to private entities. The court rejected the contention that temple lands should be automatically exempt from acquisition, citing a Supreme Court ruling that affirms the state’s power of eminent domain over religious properties.
The court noted procedural irregularities, including a joint site inspection by the first bench without notice to the petitioner, which was described as a violation of natural justice and an “abuse of power” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also dismissed claims that temple sentiments should override public interest, underscoring that infrastructure projects serve a broader societal purpose.
Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned notice and directed the CMRL to revert to its original plan of constructing the station within the temple premises, provided legal requirements are met. The court refrained from imposing costs but expressed hope that the authorities would take away a broader lesson on fairness and transparency in public decision-making. The case highlights the importance of respecting the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice in public decision-making and the need for transparency and fairness in the acquisition of land for infrastructure projects.