Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 1150

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J
Nirmala Rathore W/o Shri Gopal Singh Rethore D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15829/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Mr.Manish K. Sharma, Mr.Saurabh Pratap Singh
For the Respondents: Mr.Sudhir Gupta, Mr.Vikas Soni, Ms.Shweta Chauhan, Mr.Vijay Mittal, Mr.Pankaj Choudhary, Mr.Sushil Pujari, Mr.Yogesh Purjari, Mr.Akshay Sharma

Judicial review in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act is limited, and the competent authority's non-judicial administrative decisions should not be equated with formal judicial orders.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A(1), 3D, 3C(1), 3C(2), and 3G - Validity of land acquisition notification challenged - Petitioners allege incorrect land classification and arbitrary award of compensation - CALA disallowed objections without considering merit, but court upheld acquisition for public interest. (Paras 1, 27, 28, 51)

(B) Administrative decisions - The competent authority is not bound by judicial standards while adjudicating objections - The order of the competent authority should not be scrutinized like a judicial order, and its reasoned conclusions are upheld unless grossly arbitrary. (Paras 33, 34, 50)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge notifications and declaration issued for the acquisition of their father’s land for national highway expansion after objections were disallowed by the CALA. (Paras 1-12)

Findings of Court:
Court finds that the objections filed were justly considered in the context of public interest for national highway enhancement and the authority exercised due process of law. (Paras 14, 34)

Issues: Whether the acquisition process, including notifications and CLAR ruling on objections, followed statutory requirements under the National Highways Act. (Paras 44-48)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed limited scope of judicial review in land acquisition matters and endorsed the authority's discretion in assessment without a formal judicial analysis while upholding reasons provided. (Paras 30, 34, 50)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. acquisition of land for public purpose (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. objections to land acquisition (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. compensation for land acquisition (Para 12 , 13)
4. grounds for challenging the acquisition (Para 14)
5. jurisdiction of the court over administrative decisions (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. arguments by petitioners and respondents (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. legal provisions governing acquisition (Para 26 , 27)
8. requirements for valid land acquisition notification (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. judgement basis and limits of judicial review (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. final conclusions on the validity of objections (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
11. freedom to object to acquisition process (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
12. further legal provisions related to land rights (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
13. dismissal of the petition (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

ORDER

Order Reserved on : 2nd August, 2021

REPORTABLE

Date of Order : 18th August, 2021

By the Court:

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of notification dated 21.08.2018 and declaration dated 21.12.2018 issued under Section 3A (1) and 3D respectively of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) and the award dated 08.03.2019 passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956.

2. The facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, in nutshell, are that father of the petitioners had purchased land in February, 2002 admeasuring 0.64 hectare in Khasra No.4177 of village Pinan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar. The land use of the aforesaid land was converted for petrol pump measuring 1973.94 Sq.Mtrs. and further the land was converted for commercial use vide order dated 27.01.2004, as per the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Alwar and the remaining land 2092.20 Sq.Mtrs. remained unconverted as ‘Barani’.

3. The petitioners have pleaded that their father after setting up a petrol pump, as allotted to him by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, executed a gift deed of an area measuring 2092.20 Sq.Mtrs. in favour of the petitioners–four daughters and mutation was also sanctioned accordingly by the revenue authorities. The father of the petitioners transferred the dealership in favour of his four daughters in the name of M/s.Jai Ambey Indian Oil Company on 25.11.2010.

4. The petitioners have further pleaded that after demise of their father, the land admeasuring 1973.94 Sq.Mtrs. was mutated in the name of the petitioners viz., Vimla, Sarla, Nirmala and Urmila and due to demise of Smt.Vimla in the year 2018, her share was transferred to her legal representatives i.e. proforma respondents No.5 to 7 viz., Bajrang Singh, Krishna Kumar and Suman. The petitioners have pleaded that they and the proforma respondents are in the possession of the land in question being recorded khatedars and owners.

5. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondent-Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi in order to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners and others for the purpose of building (widening/two/four laning with paved shoulder etc.) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.148N in the stretch of the land from KM 79.395 to KM 149 in the District Alwar, Rajasthan, issued notification dated 21.08.2018 under Section 3A (1) of the Act of 1956. The said notification was also published in the daily newspapers–Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar, as per Section 3A (3) of the Act of 1956 and further objections were invited from the aggrieved persons.

6. The petitioners have pleaded that the Additional Collector, Alwar was appointed as Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the CALA’) to hear the objections in response to the notification issued under Section 3A (1) of the Act of 1956.

7. The petitioners have further pleaded that they filed their objection

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 1150

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, JNirmala Rathore W/o Shri Gopal Singh Rethore D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh – AppellantVersusUnion of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India – RespondentCivil Writ Petition No. 15829/2019

Judicial review in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act is limited, and the competent authority's non-judicial administrative decisions should not be equated with formal judicial orders.

Cases Referred (1)