Unauthorized occupants of highway land, as defined under Section 2(m) of the Control and National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, are subject to eviction under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, following the prescribed procedure.

JUDGMENT

The Executive Engineer (Highway Security), National Highways, Kadapa had issued a notice on 27.02.2020, for removal of unauthorised occupation, to various persons in Cherlopalli Hamlet in Diguvatottivaram Village and Mandal, Chittor District under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Control and National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short „the Act). This notice is said to have been issued to persons, who had entered into the lands, which fall within the boundaries of the said National Highway. Aggrieved by this notice, the said persons are said to have been filed a writ petition before this Court by way of W.P.No.13861 of 2020 which was disposed of on 11.08.2020, giving liberty to the petitioners therein to file representations before the 2nd respondent therein, raising all their contentions within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court and upon such representation being given, the 2nd respondent was directed to deal with the same and of pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners. This Court also directed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners in the writ petition until the orders are passed and communicated to them.

2. Thereafter, the petitioners therein are said to have submitted representations to the Executive Engineer (Highway Security) on 19.08.2020. This representation along with the material placed before the said executive Engineer were considered and an order dated 21.08.2020 was passed. In this order it was stated that the petitioners had only filed their Aadhaar card, current bill, house tax receipt, water cess receipt copies etc., but did not show any documents either to show that they were owners of the land or that they were not in unauthorized occupation of the land falling within the boundaries of the national highway. The Executive Engineer, after giving these reasons, required the petitioners to vacate the land immediately and cooperate for expansion of road.

3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.08.2020, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners, who are socially backward and financially poor, had occupied the land in their possession about 25 to 35 years back; that they have even constructed pucca houses in the land and have been paying house tax regularly to the Panchayat authorities; and that they had also been given Aadhaar Cards and ration cards showing their residential address as the houses constructed in the land occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners contend that since they were in occupation of the lands for the past 25 to 35 years, they cannot be treated as unauthorized occupants as per the Act. The petitioners further contend that the authorities had not followed the due process of law as required under the National Highways Act, 1956 which would be the applicable Act. It is submitted that since the Control under National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 has no application, the notice/order dated 21.08.2020 has to be set-aside.

4. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants of the land and they are entitled for payment of compensation in the event of demolition of their houses and their dispossession from the land. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contention.

1. Pilli Lakshmana Rao & Ors., v. Executive Officer Gram Panchayat & Ors., 2000 (5) ALT 246.

2. Nagaral Nirvasithula Welfare Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) SCC Online AP 114.

3. Voonna Bangaraju & Ors., v. Government of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department & Ors., 2014 (4) ALT 238.

4. Karri Raghavulu v. Principal Secretary, Registration & Stamps Department, and Ors., 2015 (3)ALT 215 .

5. The 2nd respondent, whose impugned order is under challenge, filed a counter affid