JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The writ petitioner's land, is, evidently utilized by the respondents for the construction of road, nomenclatured, as, Bdiyara-Manghara road. However, despite the respondents utilizing the land of the writ petitioner for construction of the afore road, no compensation became determined, vis-a-vis, the petitioner's land, hence, leading the writ petitioner to approach this Court. Through, the extant writ petition, the petitioner claims rendition of a mandamus, upon, the respondents for acquiring his utilised land, and, thereafter the respondents determining compensation qua his land.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, contended that since, vis-a-vis, the land of one Dina Nath located also hence within the span of the afore nomenclatured road, became after, a conclusive judgement and decree becoming rendered by the court concerned, hence, recommended, for, determination, of, compensation by the Negotiation Committed in its meeting held on 26th October, 2016, recommendations whereof, are borne in Annexure P-5, (i) and, whereafter the respondents meted approval, vis-a-vis, the recommendations as borne in Annexure P-5, (ii) thereupon, since, there is parity inter se the writ petitioner and the afore Dina Nath. Therefore, alike the afore, the respondents are enjoined to settle, vis-a-vis, the petitioner's land, compensation in accordance with law.

3. The respondents resisted the afore endeavour of the writ petitioner, on the ground, of, the writ petitioner admitting his purveying an oral consent to the respondents, in theirs undertaking the construction of the road, nomenclatured as “ Bdiyara-Manghara road”. Consequently, the respondent(s) contend(s) that the afore admitted oral consent or verbal consent purveyed by the petitioner to the respondents, does estop, him to either claim parity along with Dina Nath, and/or, from his claiming the writ relief. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore resistance, meted by the respondents, cannot be accepted, (i) as, the afore road became constructed under the PMGSY, and, all funds became purveyed by the Government of India. Since, the scheme formulated by the Government of India, for construction of roads under the PMGSY, mandate(s) that explicit consent of the landowners concerned, is to be obtained by the authority concerned, (ii) whereas, no explicit consent being obtained by the authority concerned from the writ petitioner, rather prior to theirs under taking to construct the afore road, (iii) thereupon, with the respondents breaching the mandate of the afore scheme, rather making a contemplation, vis-a-vis, the authorities concerned, prior to putting to utilization, the apposite landowners' land, for construction of any road, under the PMGSY, theirs obtaining an explicit scribed consent, of the landowners concerned. In sequel, the respondent cannot merely, upon, any admitted verbal/oral consent meted by the writ petitioner to the respondent, erect any argument, that there was completest compliance with the mandate of the scheme, rather enjoining the authorities concerned, to take an express and explicit scribed consent, for the relevant purpose, from the writ petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, mandate, if any, in PMGSY, hence stipulating the necessity of purveying of any explicit scribed consent by the landowners concerned, prior to the under taking of construction of the road, by the authorities concerned, would necessarily breach the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The afore constitutional mandate is inviolable, and, has been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a verdict rendered in a case titled as Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, reported in (2013)1 SCC 353, the relevant paragraphs where stand extracted hereinafter, (i) to be meted completest adherence, through the authorities concerned, determining compensation, vis-a-vis, the