IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. Bist, J.
Sukhwant Singh and another - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 292 of 2017(M/S)
Decided On : 16-02-2017
Land Acquisition - National Highway Act 1956 - The court directed the respondent to decide the objection filed by the petitioners expeditiously, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the objections and a lawful decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as freehold property owners, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the respondent from taking possession of their land until the arbitrator decides their claim. They also sought a time-bound decision on their objections against the award under the National Highway Act 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioners' objection expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in deciding the petitioners' objections against the land acquisition award, and the arbitrary treatment of the land as agricultural despite its commercial and industrial nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair and timely consideration of the petitioners' objections and directed the respondent to decide the objections expeditiously in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioners' objections expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of the judgment, and made no order as to costs.
V.K. Bist, J.
Heard.
2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 not to take possession of the land till the arbitrator decide the claim of the petitioner.
(ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the objection of the petitioners in a time bound period against the award dated 27.04.2015 in case no. 5/42 year 2015 pending before him from 2015 under National High Way Act 1956.”
3. Facts, in brief, are that petitioners are the bonafide bhoomidhari (freehold property owner) resident of Village Sirohlikala Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. On 23.05.2012 and 12.09.2014, Notification No. 1162(a) and Notification No. 2318 (a) were published under Rule 3(a) of the National Highway Act 1956 for acquiring the land for the purpose of extension and widening to four lane, Highway No. 74 from 175 kilometers to 256 kilometers; certain land situated at village Sihorlikala was acquired under Section 3A of the National Highway Act 1956. The Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital, Udham Singh Nagar (respondent no. 2), on 27.04.2015, published an award order in respect of the land situated at Sirohlikala, Tehsil Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. On 03.07.2015, a letter was issued to the petitioners for handing-over the possession of the land. Against the Notification No. 1162(a) and Notification No. 2318 (a) published Under Rule 3(a) of the National Highway Act 1956, the petitioners filed detailed objection. It is alleged that, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the said objections have been disposed of and an award has been passed on 27.04.2015. Against the said award, petitioners preferred objections under Section 3G(5) and (6) of the National Highway Act, 1956 before the respondent no. 1/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar; but the same have not been decided so far. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said land is situated near Ambedkar Chowk, which is heart of the city and the area is surrounded by various shops, hotels and commercial buildings. There are four petrol pumps, hotel city, palace bar, hotel Geet Palace, Corporation Bank, ATM near the said land and the learned Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital/Udham Singh Nagar has arbitrarily treated the land as an agricultural land, which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the compensation determined by the learned Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital/Udham Singh Nagar is at the flat rate applicable to the agricultural land, although the acquired land includes non-agricultural land, commercial and industrial land also.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that objection filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 1, bearing Case No. 51/142, is pending consideration from 24.08.2015 and the respondent no. 1 is not taking any decision in the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that direction may be issued to respondent no. 1 for deciding the objection filed by them at the earliest. Shri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 fairly submitted that objection filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously.
7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to take a decision in accordance with law on the objection filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.