The necessity of acquisition for public purpose and the precedence of public interest over individual interest in the construction and widening of National Highways.

Surya Kant, J.

The petitioner has laid challenge to the notifications dated 04.12.2009 & 29.11.2010 issued under Section 3-A(1) and 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as well as the award dated 04.02.2013 vide which the land described in para 2 of the writ petition measuring 17 kanal 8 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Ramgarh, Tehsil and District Panchkula in which he is a co-owner has been acquired for widening/fourlaning of National Highway No. 73 from Panchkula to Yamuna Nagar (KM 70.700 to KM 179.285).

2. The instant writ petition has been filed on December 15, 2015 after more than 2½ years of the passing of award. There is no explanation whatsoever given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay and in the light of specific objection having been taken by the National Highway Authority of India in its written statement, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone, more-so when the construction work for the widening of NH-73 has admittedly commenced.

3. Be that as it may, keeping in view the issues raised by the petitioner, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merit at a considerable length and gone through the record.

4. Learned senior counsel has raised three-fold contentions. Firstly, he contended that the acquired area falls within the Development Plan of Panchkula Extension and the drawing approved by the Town and Country Planning Department of Haryana State, reveals that they have conceived a 60 meter M-2 road leading from Sector 2/21 to Sector 23/24. The said 60 meter wide M-2 road is shown to be running along and inclusive of NH-73. There is sufficient land owned by the State of Haryana or its agency, namely, Haryana Urban Development Authority for construction of the road as per the Development Plan of State Government. Learned counsel made a pointed reference to the plan (P10) showing the notified alignment of NH-73 by NHAI and of M-2 road (60 meter wide) to contend that if National Highway is widened on the land already earmarked as "60 meter wide M-2 road", in that event, most of the acquired area of the petitioner and his co-owners would not be required as there is sufficient land available with the Government authorities. The impugned acquisition is thus detrimental to public interest. Secondly, the objections filed by the petitioner against the notification issued under Section 2-A(1), have not been considered and decided in accordance with law inasmuch as Section 3-C mandates to afford an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person but no such opportunity was accorded to the petitioner.

5. Thirdly, the impugned action would lead to demolition of a part of the Heritage Building which is now run as a hotel under the name and style of "Fort Ramgarh" since 2003. The Building has been recognized as a Heritage Hotel by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India on 20.04.2011.

6. Learned counsel for NHAI, on the other hand, urges that the acquisition has been carried out following the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956. He points out that the detailed project report including the alignment of road was finalized after adequate deliberations with the Government of Haryana including HUDA and Town and Country Planning Department. It is explained that the vacant land pointed out by the petitioner is not suitable for the four-laning as the existing road is passing through the peacock neck of which there is a Veterinary hospital on the west and Ramgarh Fort on the eastern side.

7. As regard to the petitioner's objections, he submits that the same were duly considered in accordance with law and rejected. He further explains that even according to the petitioner, only the vacant portion in front of the Fort Ramgarh is to be utilized which would entail minor demolition and not the Heritage Building as claimed by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana representing the Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue