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

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan
CWP No.8514 of 2017 [O&M]
Kimat Rai and Sons (HUF) through its Karta Sh. Kimat Rai Sikri
v.
National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
{Decided on 19/04/2018}

Advocates:
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for respondent – NHAI.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2.

Land Acquisition—National Highway – If the building is obstructing the widening of the National Highway, then such building must also pave way.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956, S.3-C – Acquisition of land for National Highway – If the building is obstructing the widening of the National Highway, then such building must also pave way as an individual’s interest is always outweighed by the larger public interest involved in the construction of National Highway – There is no gainsaying that the construction of Bypass in such busy locality is utmost necessary and the acquisition of land/property for the construction of bypass or widening of National Highway, deserves to be viewed keeping in view the wider public interest and national interest – Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4. (Para 10)

       (B) National Highways Act, 1956, S.3-C – Acquisition of land for National Highway – Petitioners with a view to save their own property have suggested to acquire the land of other land owners – Such a suggestion being contrary to the public interest has to be discarded, especially when NHAI is expert in job and having arrived at a decision after getting consultancy from experts – The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest – In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.:- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of above titled two writ petitions together as common questions of facts and law are involved in the same. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CWP No.8514 of 2017 titled Kimat Rai and Sons vs. National Highways Authority of India and another.

2. The petitioner has challenged notification dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1) issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) and notification/declaration dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) issued under Section 3D of the Act as well as subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said notifications. In CWP No.16853 of 2017, besides challenging the aforesaid two notifications, petitioner, Veena Rani has also challenged award dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure-P/7 in that writ petition). Petitioner (in CWP No.8514 of 2017) is owner of a plot measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas (2054 square yards) comprised in Khasra/Survey No.3//23/1(Min), situated in village Jhamat, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (West). Respondent-National Highways Authority of India (for short, ‘NHAI’) issued notification dated 18.09.2015 under Section 3A of the Act for widening/four laning and operation of Laddowal Bypass, Ludhiana and in that process acquired land vide notification Annexure P/1. Objections, as provided under Section 3C of the Act, were also invited within a period of 21 days from the publication of the said notification. The petitioner filed detailed objections (Annexure-P/2) to the notification on 14.10.2015. Since the petitioner failed to receive any response with regard to the aforesaid objections, he submitted representation on 30.12.2015 (Annexure-P/3). However, respondent- NHAI issued a declaration dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) under Section 3D of the Act without affording any opportunity of hearing, much less granting personal hearing to the petitioner with regard to the objections and even conveying the decision taken thereon. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order disallowing his objections and thereafter filed detailed representation on 18.06.2016 (Annexure P/6). He also submitted supplementary objections on 25.06.2016. The respondent- NHAI issued a notice on 23.03.2016 in the newspaper as required under Section 3G(3) of the Act asking all the persons interested in the land acquired vide declaration Annexure P/4 to prefer their claims. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his objections have been disallowed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and declaration Annexure P/4 has been issued. As mentioned above, in the second writ petition i.e. CWP no.16853 of 2017 filed on 29.07.2017, petitioner-Veena Rani has challenged the award dated 26.04.2017 as well.

3. Respondent-NHAI filed detailed reply taking preliminary objections that the writ petition is not maintainable, rather the same is misuse of the process of law as the petitioner has sought quashing of notification dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1), notification dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) and the award dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure P/7). The land of the petitioners had been acquired for Laddowal Bypass linking NH-095 with NH-1 via Laddowal seed farm at Ludhiana. The notification under Section 3A of the Act was published in the Gazette of India on 18.09.2015. The substance of the notification was also published in three daily newspapers widely circulated in the locality, namely, “Jagbani” (Punjabi) and “The Tribune” (English) on 12.10.2015, and in “Punjab Kesari” (Hindi) on 13.10.2015 for the information of the public. Certain objections were received from the land owners and the same were decided by the competent authority on 09.05.2016. After considering the objections, the Government of India had published a notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act on 12.05.2016. The substance of the said notification was also published in three newspapers on 06.06.2016. As respo














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