2003 Supreme(Cal) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Amitava Lala, J.
Swapan Kumar Ghosh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
AND
Shyamadas Goral & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 1605 (W) of 2003 & W.P. No. 11778 (W) of 2002
Decided on: 13th March, 2003

The National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, Section 10, does not allow the Authority to act arbitrarily and without regard to public interest. The Authority is required to act on business principles, which should be interpreted in light of constitutional principles of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and non-discrimination.

Headnote:

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT - SECTION 3A - NOTIFICATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ACQUISITION OF LAND - ENCROACHERS - BYPASS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PUBLIC INTEREST - BUSINESS PRINCIPLES - COMPENSATION - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1988 - SECTION 10 - FAIRNESS - REASONABLENESS - NON-ARBITRARINESS - NON-DISCRIMINATION - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER - MALA FIDES - BAD FAITH.

Fact of the Case:

The Central Government launched a project known as 'Golden Quadrilateral Project' to connect four major cities of India by constructing sophisticated wide roads. The project involved the acquisition of fertile cultivable lands for the construction of bypasses in two places, 'Budbud' and 'Shaktigarh', in the 'Panagarh to Palsit' stretch of the existing Grand Trunk Road (G.T. Road). The petitioners, farmers, and owners of homestead lands, challenged the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for the acquisition of their lands for the bypass projects.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the width of the G.T. Road was 150 feet, but encroachers had occupied half of it. The National Highways Authority decided to build bypasses in 'Budbud' and 'Shaktigarh' to expedite the project and avoid litigations with the encroachers. The Court referred to a previous judgment (Sk. Liakat Ali & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) which held that the 150 feet width of the original G.T. Road had already been vested in the Government of India along with the land appurtenant thereto. Therefore, no acquisition proceeding under Section 3A of the Act was necessary for removing the encroachments. The Court further held that the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, Section 10, which provides that the Authority shall act on business principles, should be interpreted in light of constitutional principles of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and non-discrimination. The Court found that the decision to construct bypasses instead of removing encroachers was not justified and amounted to a colourable exercise of power.

Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land for the construction of bypasses was necessary when the existing G.T. Road was already 150 feet wide and encroached upon? 2. Whether the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, Section 10, allows the Authority to act arbitrarily and without regard to public interest? 3. Whether the decision to construct bypasses instead of removing encroachers was justified and in accordance with the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition of land for the construction of bypasses was not necessary as the existing G.T. Road was already 150 feet wide and encroached upon. The National Highways Authority had the power to remove the encroachers without resorting to the acquisition of land. 2. The Court held that the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, Section 10, does not allow the Authority to act arbitrarily and without regard to public interest. The Authority is required to act on business principles, which should be interpreted in light of constitutional principles of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and non-discrimination. 3. The Court held that the decision to construct bypasses instead of removing encroachers was not justified and amounted to a colourable exercise of power. The Court found that the Authority had not considered the impact of the bypasses on the affected landowners and the environment. The Court also found that the Authority had not provided adequate compensation to the affected landowners.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for the acquisition of land for the construction of bypasses in 'Budbud' and 'Shaktigarh'. The Court directed the National Highways Authority to remove the encroachers from the existing G.T. Road and widen the road to its original width of 150 feet.