The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, confirming the necessity of adherence to statutory requirements while emphasizing the priority of public interest over individual grievances.

JUDGMENT :

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Komal Mehrotra and Shri Eshaan Chandra, learned counsels for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Union of India, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, both for the State-respondents, and Shri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – National Highway Authority of India, [NHAI].

1.1. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

A. PRAYER:

2. This writ petition has been preferred praying for the following relief:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification No. S.O. 2686(E) dated 10.07.2024(ANNEXURE NO. 1) issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways/Respondent No.1 under section 3D(2) of the national Highways Act, 1956, in respect of the land of the petitioner i.e. Gata/Plot No. 27 situated in Village - Kurana, District –Aligarh;

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Award dated 15.02.2025 (ANNEXURE NO. 2) passed by the Respondent No.4-Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District Aligarh, in respect of the land of the petitioner i.e. Gata/Plot No. 27 situated in Village Kurana, District – Aligarh:

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to demolish and dispossess the petitioner from Gata/Plot No. 27, situated in Village - Kurana, District - Aligarh;”

B. FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. It reflects from the records that on 06.02.2024, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, [The Act, 1956],issued Notification S.O. 558(E), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, declaring its intention to acquire land for a public purpose, namely, for building, widening/four-laning/six-laning, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. NH-334(D) in the stretch from Km. 0.000 to Km. 58.600, known as the Aligarh–Palwal Section, situated in District Aligarh, State of Uttar Pradesh. The notification contained a brief description of the land proposed to be acquired as detailed in the Schedule appended thereto. In the said notification, the plot in question, namely Gata No. 27, finds place at Serial No. 681, and an area measuring 0.8348 hectares of the said plot was proposed to be acquired. It further invited objections from persons interested in the said land under Section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956 within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. Such objections were required to be submitted in writing to the Competent Authority, namely, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh, who was empowered to afford an opportunity of hearing to the objectors, either in person or through a legal practitioner, and thereafter to pass orders allowing or disallowing the objections. The notification also clarified that the orders passed by the Competent Authority under Section 3C(2) of the Act, 1956 would be final and that the land plans and other acquisition details were available for inspection in the office of the Competent Authority.

3.1. Pursuant thereto, the substance of the aforesaid notification dated 06.02.2024 was published, as required under Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1956, in two widely circulated newspapers, namely, "The Times of India" (English) and "Navbharat Times" (Hindi), both dated 10.02.2024. Objections received from interested persons under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 were duly considered by the Competent Authority and, after affording an opportunity of hearing, were disposed of in accordance with law. Thereafter, in compliance with Section 3D(1) of t