SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D Kulkarni, JJ.
Bhagauji - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5250 of 2020, 6155 of 2020, 5997 of 2020, 5826 of 2020, 4937 of 2020, 7270 of 2020, 4694 of 2021; C.A. No. 5136 of 2020, 5553 of 2020, 5114 of 2020, 3480 of 2021
Decided On : 03-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
S.S. Tope, Advocate, A.R. Kale, Advocate, D.G. Nagode, Advocate, N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate, S.K. Kadam, Advocate, A.B. Dhongade, Advocate, Amol Patale, Advocate, R.B. Bhosale, Advocate, Deepak K Rajput, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to pay compensation and follow due process of law when acquiring property, as well as the need for rehabilitation of affected persons.

Headnote:

Article 300-A - Dispute over Road Widening - Bombay Highways Act, 1955, National Highways Act, 1956 - The court addressed a dispute over the widening of a road from 12 meters to 30 meters without acquisition of lands of adjacent landowners. The court considered the legal provisions of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955 and the National Highways Act, 1956. It issued directions for the measurement of the road to resolve the dispute.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, residents of villages in Jalna and Ambad, owned agricultural lands adjacent to a road that was being widened from 12 meters to 30 meters without compensation. They approached the court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming that the authorities were taking forcible possession of their lands without following due process of law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a dispute over the width of the road and whether the authorities were enhancing the width without due process of law. It directed the authorities to conduct a measurement of the road at the respective villages in the presence of both parties to resolve the dispute.

Issues: The main issues were whether the width of the road was being enhanced without due process of law and whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the widening of the road.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law and respecting the rights of the petitioners when property is likely to be acquired. It highlighted the obligation to pay compensation and the need for rehabilitation of affected persons. The court also stressed the need for joint measurement of the road to resolve the dispute.

Final Decision: The court issued directions for the measurement of the road at the respective villages and disposed of the writ petitions. It allowed certain civil applications and made no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2. This bunch of writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment and order by looking to the similar facts and question of law involved therein.

3. Factual matrix -

(a) The petitioners are resident of different villages situated in Taluka Jalna and Ambad, District Jalna. They own agricultural lands adjacent to National Highway No. 753H (previously known as State Highway No. 176). According to the petitioners, in their agricultural lands, they have their residential houses, wells, fruit trees, bore-well etc. which are also adjacent to the National Highway No. 753H.

(b) The road in question was a small road earlier and it came to be converted into State Highway without payment of any compensation to the petitioners while expansion of State Highway.

(c) It is the stand of the petitioners that the existing width of the road is about 12 meters. The respondents have recently issued a letter of award and started expansion of the road/up-gradation of the road to 30 meters without acquisition of land. The respondents are trying to take forcible possession of the lands of the petitioners. The respondent-authorities have cautioned to the petitioners even to use police force while taking possession. The petitioners have made it clear that they are not opposing for the road widening/up-gradation of road in question but the authority should acquire their respective lands for up-gradation of the roads as per due procedure of law. The authorities while converting the small road into said Highway No. 176, not initiated acquisition proceeding and thereby deprived of compensation of their lands which were acquired. The respondents have started up-gradation of the road in question from Sillod to Wadigodri in a phase-wise manner. The petitioners are concerned with the phase of Dhangar Pimpri to Wadigodri for which the authorities are attempting to take the forceful possession of their lands under the pretext of resolution regarding adjacent lands of road which need not require acquisition. The stand taken by the authorities is not genuine.

(d) According to the petitioners, the Government or the State authorities cannot take possession of land of any land owner without following due procedure of law. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The action initiated by the respondent-authorities thereby taking forcible possession of the lands belonging to the petitioners for road widening by showing the Government Resolution is contrary to the provision of Article 300-A. All the petitioners are similarly situated. It is their common grievance and apprehension that the respondent-authorities may take forcible possession of their respective lands without following due process of law. In the above premise, they have rushed this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The stand of the Chief Engineer (National Highway, P.W.D., Executive Engineer, National Highway Division/ Union of India (Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 7)

(e) According to respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 7, the road in question is a part of National Highway No. 753H in view of Central Government Notification/Gazette dated 06.02.2018. Previously, the said road was known as State Highway and it was under the control of Government of Maharashtra and under the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Jalna. The road in question is in a possession of the Government since last more than 40 years. The disputed road was a State Highway No. 50A and in the year 1981-2001, it was declared as State Highway No. 176 and in the year 2001-2021, same is declared as major State Highway No.13. The said major State Highway is dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top