Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1597 (ALL)

SUNDER DEEP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA

2009-04-21

ANIL KUMAR, YATINDRA SINGH

body2009
ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is against the acquisition of petitioners land under National Highway Act, 1956 (the Act) for the benefit of the National High Way Authority of India (the Authority ). The Facts ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act for imparting higher professional education. It purchased land in the year 2001 in village Dashan, Tehsil and District Ghasiabad. According to the petitioner, some buildings have already been constructed in which education for Bachelor of Pharmacy, Bachelor of Hotel Management and Catering, Post Graduate Diploma in Management, Bachelor of Technology, Master of Business Administration, Master of Computer Application, and Bachelor of Architecture is being imparted. ( 3 ) A notification under section 3-A of the Act was published on 7. 2. 2008. for construction of the loopway (the Loopway) for the crossing between National Highway No. 24 and Eastern Peripheral Express Way around Delhi. This included a part of the petitioners land where buildings are situate. The petitioner filed its objection against the same under section 3-C of the Act on 11. 3. 2008. It was rejected on 7. 1. 2009 and the notification under section 3-D of the Act was published on 21. 1. 2009, hence the present writ petition. Submissions of the Petitioner ( 4 ) WE have heard counsel for the petitioner; the standing counsel, and Sri Mohammad Ali for the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that : (i) The land in dispute has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the litigation is pending before the Supreme Court and as such this land can not be acquired under the Act; (ii) The land of the petitioner ought to have been exempted; (iii) The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Ist Submission ( 5 ) IT is admitted that the Authority is not a party in the litigation pending before the Supreme Court. The order passed therein binds the parties in that litigation and not the Authority. Nothing has been shown to us that the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can not be acquired under the Act. There is no merit in the first submission. 2nd Submission ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that: (i) The competent authority under the Act had exempted the land of the petitioner on 21. 4. Nothing has been shown to us that the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act can not be acquired under the Act. There is no merit in the first submission. 2nd Submission ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that: (i) The competent authority under the Act had exempted the land of the petitioner on 21. 4. 2008 and as such this land could not be acquired; (ii) In any case as the buildings are being used to impart professional education it should have been released. ( 7 ) WE have seen the letter dated 21. 4. 2008. It is a recommendation to the Authority and not the order exempting it. The Supreme Court has appointed a Monitoring Committee to consider the progress of the construction of the Highway. The objection of the petitioner as well as the recommendations were considered by the Monitoring Committee in its meeting dated 17. 11. 2008. The monitoring Committee expressed the view that there is no justification for changing course of the highway or to release the land. The objection of the petitioner was also rejected by the competent authority on 7. 11. 2008. There is no justification to exempt the land of the petitioner. 3rd Submission ( 8 ) THE counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed as it had no knowledge of the date. This has happened as no reasonable procedure was adopted to serve the notice. ( 9 ) IT is not disputed that there is no specific provision in the Act or the Rules providing any specific procedure for serving notice. Nevertheless, it has to be done in a reasonable way. Numerous persons had filed their objections. it is not possible to send them individual notice and the notice was served by publication in the newspaper Rastriya Sahara on 4. 1. 2009. In view of this, it can not be said that reasonable procedure was not adopted in serving notice. ( 10 ) THE notice was published in the newspaper. It was for the petitioner to appear before the competent authority. In any case, the competent authority has also considered the case on merit that it is not possible to release the land of the petitioner. The Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court has also opined the same. The disputed land can not be released. It was for the petitioner to appear before the competent authority. In any case, the competent authority has also considered the case on merit that it is not possible to release the land of the petitioner. The Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court has also opined the same. The disputed land can not be released. Conclusion ( 11 ) IN view of the above, there is no justification to issue any direction. The writ petition is dismissed. .