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

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India – Respondent
Civil Writ No. 4257 of 2018, 5263 of 2018
Decided On : 05-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
T.R.S. Sodha, Adv., Vineet Sanadhya, Adv., G.C. Mathur, Adv.

The scope of judicial review in matters of land acquisition under the National Highways Act is extremely limited, and the land owner has no right to raise objections of general nature against the proposed acquisition of his/her land.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR TOLL PLAZAS - CHANGE OF LOCATION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - NO GENERAL RIGHT TO OBJECT TO ACQUISITION - OBJECTIONS LIMITED TO USE OF LAND - NO MALAFIDES - ACQUISITION UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands for the construction of toll plazas on the grounds that the NHAI had initially acquired other lands for the same purpose and that the change in location was arbitrary and malafide.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the initial survey report was prepared with inaccurate road distances and that the NHAI had rectified the error by acquiring the petitioners' lands, which were the correct locations for the toll plazas. The court also found that the petitioners had no general right to object to the acquisition of their lands under the National Highways Act and that their objections were limited to the use of the land for purposes other than those specified in the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the NHAI's change in location for the construction of toll plazas was arbitrary and malafide. 2. Whether the petitioners had a general right to object to the acquisition of their lands under the National Highways Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the NHAI's change in location was not arbitrary or malafide, as it was based on a correction of an error in the initial survey report. 2. The court held that the petitioners had no general right to object to the acquisition of their lands under the National Highways Act, and that their objections were limited to the use of the land for purposes other than those specified in the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned acquisition notifications.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J.

These two writ petitions preferred by the petitioners herein involve common questions of facts and law and have been filed to assail the action of the respondent National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI' for short) in acquiring additional lands from the petitioners' fields which are located adjoining the NH-65 for the purpose of setting up of toll plazas at the questioned locations.

2. The writ petitioners of WP No.4257/2010 own khatedari lands in Khasra Nos.1996/1139 and 1139/1888 village Nimbi Jodhan, District Nagaur whereas, the writ petitioners of WP No.5263/2018 own khatedar lands in Khasra Nos.376, 385, 1018/377, 83, 92, 1078/523, 1079/523 and 523 in village Harima, Tehsil and District Nagaur.

3. The petitioners have set up a case in these writ petitions that while undertaking the work of widening/two-laning with paved shoulders, realignment/bypass and four laning, maintenance, management and operation etc. of National Highway No.65 on the stretch of land from KM 72.600 to KM 112.760 & KM 155.600 to KM 171.450 (Salasar to Nagaur Section), the respondents had acquired lands other than those of the petitioners for setting up of toll plazas and final award has also been passed in that regard. However, while the work of widening was being undertaken, the concerned officials of the NHAI started arbitrarily encroaching upon the petitioners' lands and unofficially conveyed that the toll plazas would be constructed there. Thereupon, these writ petitions were filed by the petitioners with an apprehension that their khatedari lands might be usurped without following due process of law.

4. Interim protection was granted by this Court restraining the respondents from raising construction on the lands of the petitioners without passing a final award of acquisition. During pendency of the writ petitions, final awards for acquisition of the petitioners' lands have been passed with the objective of establishment of toll plazas thereupon by amending the original plan whereunder, lands located elsewhere had been acquired for setting up the very same toll plazas. The petitioners have set up a case in the writ petitions that the NHAI officials modified the original plan with the ulterior objective of giving undue advantage to those landholders and have arbitrarily shifted their attention on to the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of setting up of the very toll plazas for which, suitable lands had already been acquired at both the locations. With these submissions and aspersions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned action of acquisition.

5. During pendency of the writ petitions, numerous additional affidavits were filed on behalf of the petitioners asserting about non-feasibility of setting up of the toll plazas on the petitioners' lands owing to NHAI norms; the distance of the lands in one of the cases is within 10 Kms. from the municipal limits of Nagaur etc. Bonafides of NHAI officials have been seriously questioned by the petitioners in their quest for assailing the impugned acquisition notifications.

6. Shri T.R.S. Sodha learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that there is no justification behind the modification which the respondent NHAI has undertaken from the originally sanctioned plan where under, other lands were acquired for setting up of the disputed toll plazas. He fervently urged that as these lands have been acquired after making payment from public exchequer, the NHAI cannot be allowed to arbitrarily change the location of the toll plazas at such a belated stage and thereby, causing grave and serious prejudice to the proprietory rights of the petitioners as guaranteed by Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He contended that the lands of the petitioners which have been subjected to fresh acquisition under the notification dated 12.1.2018 (Annex.7) in W.P.No.4257/2018 and notification dated 24.1.2018 (Annex.11) in W.P.N













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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