Partial land acquisition's severance or injurious affection requires objective evidence like maps, valuations, site plans; writ court dismisses without proof if arguments deviate from pleadings; liberty to statutory authority for representations.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing National Highway No. 222 through the properties of the petitioners situated at Survey Nos. 369/2 and 370/2 of village Kedgaon, Taluka and District Ahilyanagar is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners have also sought directions to the respondent authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 on the basis of the objections dated 16.08.2024 submitted by them. In the alternative, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has orally prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to decide the objections and representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law.

2. The petitioners claim to be owners of certain non-agricultural commercial plots particularly described in the memo of petition, situated adjacent to the existing Kalyan–Ahmednagar–Nanded–Nirmal road passing through village Kedgaon. According to the petitioners, the said road was originally a two-lane road and on account of increased traffic congestion and growth in vehicular movement the authorities decided to widen the road and convert it into a four-lane national highway. The petitioners submit that their plots were not included in the initial notification published in the Official Gazette on 05.05.2016 declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire lands for development of National Highway No. 222. According to them, subsequently the alignment of the highway project was altered at the pressure of some political persons and portions of their lands came to be affected by the acquisition proceedings.

3. The petitioners further contend that their lands had already been converted into non-agricultural plots pursuant to permission granted as far back as on 01.06.1983 and the plots were being used for commercial purposes. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are stated to be medical practitioners intending to establish a trauma hospital on the said plots, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are stated to be contractors intending to develop the land by constructing a commercial complex. According to the petitioners, despite the non-agricultural status of their lands, the respondent authorities treated the lands as agricultural lands while initiating acquisition proceedings and proceeded to acquire only a portion of the plots.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that by acquiring only part of their plots and leaving the remaining portions unacquired, the respondent authorities have rendered the remaining land unusable and commercially non-viable. The petitioners further contend that in the vicinity of their land a flyover and a 12 metre service road have been constructed and in view of various guidelines governing construction near highways, the remaining portion of the land cannot be effectively utilized. According to the petitioners, this partial acquisition has caused severe injury and severance to their property.

5. The petitioners state that from time to time they have submitted objections before the competent authority in response to notifications issued under the National Highways Act, 1956 and that on 16.08.2024 t