Point of Law : Act of 1956 was enacted to regulate National Highways in entire country, and to deal with any land dispute in relation to the acquisition of lands for construction of the National Highways.

JUDGMENT :

1. After the judgment was reserved on 06.04.2023, Advocate Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel appeared in the Chamber and submitted that though he represented the petitioners in both the instant petitions i.e. WP Nos. 5117/2020 & 3995/2020, but after the judgment was reserved, the petitioner in WP No.3995/2020 has taken NOC from him, and thus, virtually, he has no further instructions in the said writ petition (No.3995/2020).

1.1 This Court realizes that in the likelihood of the judgment coming against the petitioner in WP No. 3995/2020, he tried to prohibit/pressurize the Counsel by taking away the NOC after the judgment was reserved. Such a practice, in the firm opinion of this Court, requires to be deprecated.

2. Since the both instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the factual matrix and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered SBCWP No.5117/2020, while treating the same as a lead case.

2.1. The prayer clauses, as mentioned in the above-numbered SBCWP No.5117/2020, read as under:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction:

i. The impugned notice dated 24.07.2019 (Annex.9) and notice dated 16.03.2020 (Annex.11) issued with regard to land of humble petitioners situated in Khasra Nos.859/1, 861, 862, 861/1 and 864 may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside; and

ii. The respondents may kindly be restrained from acquiring the land of humble petitioners throughout of these notices for the purpose of construction of ring road; and

iii. Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are agriculturists having their agricultural lands in Khasra No. 859/1, 861, 862, 861/1 and 864 measuring in all 8 bighas 10 biswas, while rest of the land belongs to other co-tenants.

3.1. The respondent no.2, for the purposes of development of Jodhpur by-pass road, initiated the acquisition proceedings in Village Chokha, District Jodhpur. In this regard, the respondents published a notice in the daily newspaper “Rajasthan Patrika” on 24.07.2019, impugned herein, under Section 3-A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1956’), inviting the objections, and directed the concerned persons to appear before the Authorized Officer (Land Acquisition) & Sub Divisional Officer, District Jodhpur on 19.08.2019. The petitioners accordingly, appeared before the said authority and submitted their objections under Section 3-C of the Act of 1956.

3.2. Thereafter, the respondents issued another notice dated 16.03.2020, impugned herein, in the daily newspaper “Rajasthan Patrika” (Jodhpur Edition dated 18.05.2020) under Section 3-B of the Act of 1956, inviting the objections and submissions regarding the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the lands in question. The petitioners furnished their objections and submissions before the SDO on 08.06.2020. The petitioners also filed an application before the District Collector, Jodhpur regarding the objections in respect of acquisition of the land in questions, but the grievance of the petitioners was not redressed. Hence, the instant petitions have been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in the years 1993 to 1999 for construction of the ring road, when seen in conjunction with the land acquisition proceedings in question, clearly reveal that the respondent no.2-NHAI is diverting the road, without there being any requirement an