Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Bhagwan Singh Karki and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2253, 1829 of 2013, Writ Petition (M/S) No.1563 of 2017
Decided On : 07-12-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.C. Pandey, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel
For the National Highway Authority of India :Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in highway development matters and the constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication in hilly areas.
Headnote:
National Highways Act - Land Acquisition - Sections 2(2), 3A, 3C, 3D(1), 3G(3), 13, 16 - The court upheld the acquisition of land for the construction and widening of National Highway No. 87, emphasizing the public purpose and the authority's compliance with the National Highways Act. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters of highway development and the constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication in hilly areas.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners owned land that was acquired for the construction and widening of National Highway No. 87. They challenged the acquisition, claiming that the notifications were vague and sketchy, and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notifications were not vague and that the acquisition was for a public purpose, emphasizing the importance of road construction for the country's economy and the constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication in hilly areas.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the land acquisition notifications and the public purpose of the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition was valid, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in highway development matters and the constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication in hilly areas.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the National Highway Authority of India/Ministry of Road Transport and Highways was directed to complete the construction and widening of National Highway No. 87 within two years.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, therefore, same are being taken up together and adjudicated of by this common judgment.
(Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1829 of 2017)
2. Key facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner no.1 has purchased a land measuring 0.161 hectare (two bighas eleven biswa) of Plot No. 569 situated at Village Haripur, Tularam, Tehsil-Haldwani, District Nainital vide registered sale deeds dated 22.03.2005. The petitioner no.1 moved an application for sanction of site plan before the Prescribed Authority on 07.10.2005. The site plan was sanctioned on 20.02.2006. The petitioner no.1 constructed a building for commercial purpose called as Sri Golju Tower, as per the sanctioned plan. The respondent no.1 issued notification on 04.07.2012, for acquiring the land of survey no. 569. It was duly published in daily newspaper on 15.08.2012. The petitioner, initially, filed objections and thereafter, supplementary objections were filed. The objections were rejected by the concerned authority on 03.05.2013. The notification was issued under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “N.H. Act” for sake and brevity) on 02.07.2013. The notification under Section 3G (3) was also issued on 22.08.2013. It was published on daily newspapers namely Amar Ujala and Times of India.
(Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2253 of 2013)
3. The petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of the land measuring 6 hectares of Plot Nos. 120, 124, 126, 128, 131, 135 & 137 situated at Village Haripur, Purnanand, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital falling between Lalkuan and Haldwani in Bareilly Road earlier known as State Highway No.12. The petitioner nos. 5 to 10 are joint owner of land measuring 3,3780 hectares of different plots bearing nos. 71, 74, 75, 143, 144, 150, 151, 360 and 187/418 situated at Village Gaujajali (Bichli), Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. A notification was issued by the respondent no.1 on 04.07.2012, which was published on 15.08.2012 in the daily newspaper. The petitioners filed objections against the same. The objections were rejected by the Competent Authority on 03.05.2013. Thereafter, notification was issued under Section 3A (3) of the N.H. Act and was published in two daily newspapers namely Amar Ujala and Times of India on 15.08.2012. The notification under Section 3D(1) was published on 02.07.2013.
(Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1563 of 2017)
4. The petitioner has purchased the land measuring 0.171 hectare situated in Khata No. 37, Khasra No. 569 at Haripur Tula Ram, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.2011. The petitioner’s husband submitted an application on 07.10.2005 for sanction of site plan. The site plan was sanctioned on 20.02.2006. The husband of the petitioner constructed the building for commercial purpose called as Sri Golju Tower. The notification was issued on 04.07.2012. It was published on 15.08.2012. The objections were heard and rejected on 03.05.2013. The petitioner has referred to letters dated 04.02.2014 and 07.03.2014 as well as 11.07.2014 and 11.03.2015.
5. Counter affidavits were filed by the respondents.
6. The case of the petitioners, precisely, is that the notification issued on 04.07.2012 was vague and sketchy. The exact description of the land and property has not been given. Public purpose is not mentioned in the notification. According to them, there is violation of Section 2 (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Their further contention is that there was no existing highway from the land of the petitioners. Only 20 meters land was required to be acquired.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the issuance of notification dated 04.07.2012 and the notification issued under Sections 3D (1) and 3G (3) of the Act. According to them, the land was acquired for widening the national highway. They further pleaded that al
