Important points:
Question of Central Government, developing and maintaining the National Highways or subject to such conditions, if any, to exercise such works to the State Governments, within which the National Highways are situated, or any other officer or authority subordinate to the State Government, or to the State Government, is not a condition precedent for declaring the intention of the Central Government to acquire any land for the purposes mentioned in Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 or to issue any notification under Section 3D of the said Act, 1956

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeal emanates from a common judgment passed in W.P. (C) No.2679 of 2019 and other connected writ petitions, dated 03.04.2019, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merit, by ordering thus:

“3. The notification issued under Section 3A is for acquiring land. This is the first step for the formation of the National Highway. Merely because the land is acquired for National Highway, it will not become a National Highway, unless it is notified in accordance with the National Highways Act. Therefore, the question of appointing the nodal agency by notification for the purpose of development and maintenance does not arise at that stage. The question therefore only to be addressed is whether the land is required for National Highway. The declaration through notification would be sufficient for the purpose of initiating acquisition. It is only after formation of the National Highway, further question of notification under the National Highways Act as well as the National Highways Authority of India Act, arises. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without there being a notification under the National Highways Authority and National Highways Authority of India Act such nodal agency cannot determine the alignment is legally unsustainable. At the threshold stage, what is required to be satisfied is whether the land is required for the formation of operation of national highway or not. That would be sufficient to issue a notification under Section 3A. Therefore, the arguments questioning Section 3A notification are tenable.

4. Then, the next question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation in terms of Act 30/2013. It is fairly submitted before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway that the Central Government has notified that the evictees would be entitled for compensation in terms of the Act 30/2013 for the land acquired for the development and formation of the National Highway. That submission is recorded. There are no other points to be considered in these writ petitions. With observations and recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the compensation will be paid in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30/2013. The writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit.”

2. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that W.P.(C) No.2679 of 2019 was filed by the appellant challenging the notifications dated 02.05.2013 and 24.12.2013, Exhibits-P7 and P10 respectively, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, and to direct the competent authority to consider his objection under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 and specifically the change in the alignment to enforce the policy decision to save buildings when alternative course of acquisition of land is feasible and also to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from his property or from demolishing his residential building, on the ground that the nodal agency, entrusted with the work to identify the alignment and develop the National Highway, is not the one constituted in accordance with the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988.

3. Appellant/writ petitioner has acquired immovable property, as evident from Exhibits-P1 to P4, for construction of a residential building. He built a house therein and started occupying the same on 01.05.1977. Appellant has further stated that he has turned 72 years and it is impossible for him to build another residential building or carry out the required extensive modification to the present residential building after demolition of a section.

4. Appellant has further stated that a National Highway passes along the western boundary of his residential property in 209-21