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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1733

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Nirmala Rathore & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15829/2019
Decided On : 18-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Manish K. Sharma, Adv. & Mr.Saurabh Pratap Singh, Adv, for the Petitioner; Mr.Sudhir Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vikas Soni, Adv, Ms.Shweta Chauhan, Adv. & Mr.Vijay Mittal, Advocate., Mr.Pankaj Choudhary, Advocate for Mr.Rohit Choudhary, Dy.Govt.Counsel. Mr.Sushil Pujari, Adv. & Mr.Yogesh Purjari, Adv. for Nos.5 to 7. Mr.Akshay Sharma, Addl.Govt. Counsel (Through VC), for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G - Petitioners challenged the notifications and award for land acquisition for highway development - Petitioners argued the land was wrongfully categorized and proper procedures were not followed - CALA disallowed objections, determining acquisition was in public interest - Court held that objections were adequately considered, reaffirming minimal interference in acquisition decisions is warranted. (Paras 28-50)

(B) Jurisdiction and powers of the competent authority - The competent authority need not craft judicial-like orders; the decisions must reflect consideration of objections but need not be overly detailed or legally articulate. (Paras 32-34)

(C) Procedural compliance and statutory rights - The court noted that mere procedural irregularities would not invalidate acquisition unless there is a substantial violation of legislative mandate - Time-sensitive national development projects require expedient judicial deference. (Paras 35-36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, four daughters, contested the acquisition of their late father's land for highway development, claiming mischaracterization of land use and lack of due process. The land was designated for commercial use as a petrol pump.

Findings of Court:
The CALA's decision to reject the petitioners' objections was upheld. The acquisition process met statutory requirements under the National Highways Act, and the public interest of highway development was prioritized.

Issues: Main issues involved the nature of the land description, adequacy of reasoning by the CALA, and compliance with statutory procedures.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the competent authority must consider objections but is not bound to produce a judicial-style order; statutory forms are sufficient as long as the process was adhered to, emphasizing limited scope for judicial review.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to land acquisition notifications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioners' objections and arguments against acquisition (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 14)
3. cala's determination and award of compensation (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 18)
4. respondents' counterarguments and maintainability issues (Para 21 , 23 , 24)
5. court's legal reasoning on objections and acquisition validity (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. final judgment and dismissal of petition (Para 35 , 39 , 50)

JUDGMENT

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of notification dated 21.08.2018 and declaration dated 21.12.2018 issued under Section 3A(1) and 3D respectively of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1956') and the award dated 08.03.2019 passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956.

2. The facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, in nutshell, are that father of the petitioners had purchased land in February, 2002 admeasuring 0.64 hectare in Khasra No.4177 of village Pinan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. The land use of the aforesaid land was converted for petrol pump measuring 1973.94 Sq.Mtrs. and further the land was converted for commercial use vide order dated 27.01.2004, as per the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Alwar and the remaining land 2092.20 Sq.Mtrs. remained unconverted as 'Barani'.

3. The petitioners have pleaded that their father after setting up a petrol pump, as allotted to him by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, executed a gift deed of an area measuring 2092.20 Sq.Mtrs. in favour of the petitioners-four daughters and mutation was also sanctioned accordingly by the revenue authorities. The father of the petitioners transferred the dealership in favour of his four daughters in the name of M/s.Jai Ambey Indian Oil Company on 25.11.2010.

4. The petitioners have further pleaded that after demise of their father, the land admeasuring 1973.94 Sq.Mtrs. was mutated in the name of the petitioners viz., Vimla, Sarla, Nirmala and Urmila and due to demise of Smt.Vimla in the year 2018, her share was transferred to her legal representatives i.e. proforma respondents No.5 to 7 viz., Bajrang Singh, Krishna Kumar and Suman. The petitioners have pleaded that they and the proforma respondents are in the possession of the land in question being recorded khatedars and owners.

5. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent-Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi in order to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners and others for the purpose of building (widening/two/four laning with paved shoulder etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.148N in the stretch of the land from KM 79.395 to KM 149 in the District Alwar, Rajasthan, issued notification dated 21.08.2018 under Section 3 A(1) of the Act of 1956. The said notification was also published in the daily newspapers-Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar, as per Section 3 A(3) of the Act of 1956 and further objections were invited from the aggrieved persons.

6. The petitioners have pleaded that the Additional Collector, Alwar was appointed as Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the CALA') to hear the objections in response to the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956.

7. The petitioners have further pleaded that they filed their objections within the prescribed period indicating that nature of the land was wrongly shown as Barani because the said land had already been converted for commercial purpose i.e. for running petrol pump and the remaining land was residential.

8. The petitioners objected that their father being a freedom fighter was allotted a petrol pump and as such after his death, the petrol pump was the only source of livelihood and they had made a huge investment for commissioning and running of the said petrol pump. The petitioners also r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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