The main legal point established is that land owners have the right to object under Sec. 3C of the National Highways Act and are entitled to compensation for the utilization of their land for highway construction.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. The National Highways Authority of India and the Government of India through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways have filed the present petition challenging order dtd. 16/3/2021, passed by the respondent No.1 - Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal. By the said order an application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 6 i.e. land owners, under Sec. 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, has been allowed and specific directions have been given to the petitioners in the context of 0.88 HR land located in Gut No.4, Mouza Madkona, Tahsil and District - Yavatmal.

3. The petitioners undertook a project for constructing National Highway No.361 passing through Gut No.4, Mouza Madkona, and for that purpose provisions of the aforesaid Act were invoked for acquisition of land. Petitioner No.2 issued declaration under Sec. 3A of the aforesaid Act, declaring intention to acquire 1.8261 HR of land from Gut No.4, in Mouza Madkona. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 raised objections under Sec. 3C of the said Act in respect of the acquisition proposed to be undertaken for construction of the aforesaid National Highway. It was the case of respondent Nos.2 to 6 that 0.62 HR and 0.26 HR lands from the aforesaid Gut No.4, Mouza Madkona, were utilized by the petitioners for construction of the said National Highway No.361, but in the process no steps were taken for follow-up action regarding acquisition under the provisions of the said Act.

4. It was claimed that there were documents on record to show that joint measurement was undertaken, identifying the aforesaid lands admeasuring 0.62 and 0.26 HR i.e. total 0.88 HR from Gut No.4, Mouza Madkona, belonging to respondent Nos.2 to 6, that was utilized during construction of the said National Highway and yet, the petitioners had not taken appropriate steps for compensating respondent Nos.2 to 6. In this backdrop, the said application under Sec. 3C of the aforesaid Act was filed, which was allowed by the impugned order dtd. 16/3/2021.

5. The petitioners filed the present petition, wherein notice was issued for final disposal by order dtd. 17/8/2021. The respondent No.1 entered appearance through the Assistant Government Pleader and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were also represented by counsel.

6. Mr.Saurabh Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dtd. 16/3/2021, passed by respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the nature of objections that could be entertained under Sec. 3C of the aforesaid Act. It was submitted that the findings rendered in the impugned order were well beyond the scope of Sec. 3C of the said Act and the direction given in the impugned order for rendering Award and disbursing compensation to respondent Nos. 2 to 6, was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.1. It was claimed that although declaration under Sec. 3A of the said Act was issued, there was no follow-up action as expected under Sec. 3D of the said Act pertaining to the aforesaid pieces of land and therefore, there was no question of rendering a land acquisition Award and disbursing compensation to respondent Nos.2 to 6.

7. It was further submitted that 0.26 HR land concerned a service lane and insofar as 0.62 HR land was concerned, the same was never acquired by the petitioners and an earlier litigation initiated by respondent No.2 against the Public Works Department of the State Government claiming that the said piece of land was utilized for construction of State highway, had met with failure before this Court. Attention of this Court was invited to order dtd. 29/6/2010, passed in Writ Petition No.2282 of 2009, wherein this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 concerning the very same piece of land admeasuring 0.62 HR in Gut No