The court clarified that the declaration of land as a National Highway before acquisition and the Competent Authority's order under the 1956 Act do not require strict adherence to judicial procedures.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The State's enabling power to acquire/expropriate the private property for public use is known as ‘Eminent domain’. Such power of the State, provincial or national Government, is drawn from Entry No. 42 of List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Article 31A of the Constitution of India saves such laws, subject to adequately compensating the owner. In compulsory acquisition of the property by the State, no doubt, an owner stands deprived from property against his wishes but such enabling power has stood test of time on the basis of a well known concept that the public interest is required to be given precedence over the private interest. No doubt, even after deletion of the right to property from the chapter of fundamental rights in the Constitution of India, it nonetheless continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300A. Hence, no one can be deprived of the property except in accordance with law. There is normal tendency to hold property close to chest while trying to repel the efforts to take it away, more particularly, when it is against wishes. However, the State is expected to exercise such enabling power only when the public interest is required to be given paramouncy over the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. Through this petition, the petitioners are making attempt to resist construction of a bypass/ring road, which once completed, shall become a part of an existing national highway.

Issues:-

2. In the considered view of this Bench, the following issues arise for adjudication:-

(i) Before issuance of a notification under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1956 Act’) intending to acquire a piece of land, is it mandatory to first declare the aforesaid land as a National Highway under Section 2 of the 1956 Act?

(ii) Whether the Competent Authority while deciding objections under Section 3C of the 1956 Act against the proposed acquisition is required to pass an order like a judicial order passed by a legally trained mind?

3.Facts:-

3.1 In short, the facts of the case are that the Central Government on being satisfied that some pieces of land would be required for building (Widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.....) maintenance, management and operation of a National Highway, issued a notification under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act. The petitioners claim to be owners of the land measuring 32 acres approximately, out of which a substantial part is sought to be acquired for building a national highway. They claim to have purchased the land for expansion of their existing manufacturing plant where export quality shawls, scarfs and suits etc are produced. On 22.12.2020, they filed objections contesting the compulsory acquisition before the competent authority. In the objection petition, it is contended that no notification u/s 3A of the 1956 Act could have been issued for constructing a ring road around Ludhiana City as it does not fall in the definition of a National Highway. It is further pointed out that the petitioners’ land falls beyond the radius of 18 kms from Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana’s office and therefore, their land has been included by mistake. The objectors also drew the attention of the competent authority to various other alternative routes/possibilities. In the absence of the prior environmental clearance, no notification u/s 3A could have been issued. Undisputedly, on 5.12.2020 the Competent Authority, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, dismissed the objections .

3.2 Through this writ petition, the writ petitioners have opted to challenge the notification dated 25.11.2020 (Section 3A of the 1956 Act) as also the order dated 05.02.2021. On 28.01.2021, learned counsel representing the National Highway Authority of India (hereafter for short NHAI), who had appeared pursuant to the supply of an advance copy of the writ petition, was requested to assist