The main legal point established in the judgment is that public authorities must exercise their statutory powers in a fair and non-arbitrary manner, and their actions are subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional mandates.

Public authorities, statutory authorities, administrative authorities in this country think they are law unto to themselves; they come before court in answer to the notices issued in the writ petitions wherein the aggrieved persons/citizens of the country file petitions seeking for judicial review of administrative action only to claim to be immune from scrutiny and examination, on the bogey of some action having been taken based on some expert advice or on some technical advice.

2. The present writ petition is one such case, where the writ petitioner, owner of a land and building located in the vicinity of national highway No 48 at Madigundanahalli, Kudur hobli, Magadi taluk, Ramanagaram district, is complaining that considerable extent of his land and building, in all measuring about 1416 sq.mtrs spread over two survey numbers viz., Sy No 37/2D and 37/2E, have been notified for acquisition by the central government for the benefit of national highways authorities under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), but the proceedings have taken place in a haphazard, arbitrary, whimsical and even prejudicial manner to the petitioner, to the detriment of the petitioner and has therefore sought for the following relief:

i) issue a writ of certiorari or writ or order or direction to quash the notification No.SO 1835 (E) dated 26.10.2007 issued by the first respondent published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 26.10.2007 at Annexure – H in so far as the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.37/2D and 37/2E concerned; and

ii) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances including payment of cost.

Contending that while it is always open to the public authorities to take up public causes including widening and improving of national highways, which, the respondents claim is part of national highways development project but at the same time it should be done in a manner contemplated by law, in a fair and non-arbitrary manner, but action taken by the respondents in the present case is arbitrary, whimsical, outright, biased against the petitioner, to the detriment of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has come before this court for relief.

3. Notices had been issued to the respondents and subsequently M/s Singhania & Partners, have entered appearance for the highways authority, whereas the first respondent-union of India though is represented by Sri Syeda Shehnaz, Addl Central Govt Standing Counsel, none has appeared before the court today for first respondent.

4. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the second respondent contending that the acquisition of part of land and building belonging to the petitioner is for the purpose of widening of existing highway into a four-lane highway from KM 28.00 to KM 110 on NH48 (Nelamangala to Hassan section); that the ministry of shipping, road transport and highways is concerned with this project and had caused acquisition proceedings exercising the power under sub-section (1) Section 3 of the Act by issue of notification dated 17.11.2006, declaring its intention to acquire the land mentioned in the schedule to the notification; that it has been duly notified, objections invited, objectors heard and acquisition proceedings processed and finalized; that the petition averments are incorrect, perverse, without substance; that the project of widening the road is being carried on in consonance with the parameters set by the Indian Road Congress and the detailed project report has been prepared by a team of experts and consultants, keeping in view the geometric viz., vertical and horizontal curves, topography of area and design, speed etc; that all technical details have been kept in mind; that while it is a fact that the petitioner had filed his objections to the proposal, the petitioner has been heard, but his objections have been rejected by the special land acquisition officer and thereafter acquisition pr