Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 795 (RAJ)

Peera Ram v. Union of India

2009-03-18

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition was filed on 19.10.2005 in challenge to the land acquisition proceedings as adopted by the respondents under the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) particularly in relation to the agricultural land as comprised in Khasra Nos. 85 and 86 at village Ore, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi. 2. The averments taken in the writ petition are essentially to the effect that the khatedari land of the petitioner as comprised in Khasra Nos. 85 and 86 was included in the acquisition notification dated 27.09.2004 issued under Section 3A of the Act wherein the measurement of land of Khasra No. 86 sought to be acquired was stated at 0.6869 hectares but then, the notification did not give out the description of the land with reference to the person concerned and, therefore, the petitioner made an objection about himself being the owner of the land in question and only thereafter was he issued a notice. The petitioner has pointed out that in pursuance of the notice, an objection was stated by him that the road was proposed to be constructed on the either side of the existing road but then, in regard to his land, measurements different than the original notification were stated in the notice; and no notification had been issued on such a change. The petitioner submits that his objections were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his cursory order dated 04.04.2005 (Annex.4) that was passed on the basis of the opinion given by the Project Director, Udaipur whereas the Authority concerned was required to apply its own mind to the objections and not to base its decision on any other advice. The petitioner has pointed out that on 25.08.2005, a notification was published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika (the notification dated 28.06.2005) purporting to be the one under Section 3D of the Act and this very day, another notification was issued purporting to amend the previous notification and now, the measurement of the land sought to be acquired in Khasra No. 86 was mentioned as 0.7250 hectares. The petitioner contends that once the notification under Section 3A was superseded, the notification under Section 3D was void and without jurisdiction because fresh opportunity to file objection was required to be given. 3. The petitioner contends that once the notification under Section 3A was superseded, the notification under Section 3D was void and without jurisdiction because fresh opportunity to file objection was required to be given. 3. In opposition to this writ petition, a specific reply has been submitted by the respondents pointing out, inter alia, that the project had been taken up for four-laning of National Highway No. 14 from Km 246.000 to Km 306.400 between Palanpur in Gujarat to Swaroopganj in Rajasthan, which necessitated acquisition of land including that comprised in Khasra Nos. 85, 86 and 87 at village Ore, Tehsil Abu Road. The respondents have averred that initially, the notification dated 27.09.2004 was issued under Section 3A of the Act wherein was included the land to the extent of 0.7480 hectares in Khasra No. 85; 0.6869 hectares in Khasra No. 86; and 0.0847 hectares in Khasra No. 87. However, according to the respondents, a final survey was undertaken during the course of hearing and it was found that the land as mentioned in Khasra Nos. 85 and 87 was not needed to the extent mentioned in the notification dated 27.09.2004 and, therefore, in the final notification as issued on 28.06.2005 under Section 3D of the Act, acquisition was made to the extent of 0.6433 hectares of the land of Khasra No. 85 and 0.0757 hectares of the land of Khasra No. 87. 4. The respondents have pointed out that in relation to Khasra No. 86, when it was found that the land required was more than that mentioned in the earlier notification dated 27.09.2004, this Khasra No. 86 was not included in the final notification issued under Section 3D of the Act on 28.06.2005; and in order to acquire the requisite land, a fresh notification dated 11.07.2005 was issued under Section 3A of the Act covering the land measuring 0.7250 hectares in Khasra No. 86; and thereafter, the final notification was issued on 18.04.2006 under Section 3D of the Act while including the said land falling in Khasra No. 86 to the extent of 0.7250 hectares. A copy of the notification dated 18.04.2006, issued after filing of this writ petition, has been placed on record by the respondents. 5. A copy of the notification dated 18.04.2006, issued after filing of this writ petition, has been placed on record by the respondents. 5. Having examined the said notification dated 18.04.2006 and the other notifications in their chronology, this Court finds that the suggestions as made in this writ petition filed on 19.10.2005 i.e., before issuance of the said notification dated 18.04.2006, do not make out any case for interference. 6. True it is that earlier the land of Khasra No. 86 to the extent of 0.6869 hectares was included in the notification dated 27.09.2004 as issued under Section 3A of the Act but then, while issuing the declaration under Section 3D of the Act on 28.06.2005, such land of Khasra No. 86 was not included therein because, as pointed out by the respondents, some additional land was proposed to be acquired. Thereafter, the respondents issued a fresh notification dated 11.07.2005 under Section 3A of the Act wherein 0.7250 hectares of the land of Khasra No. 86 was included and, in pursuance of the said fresh notification dated 11.07.2005, the declaration under Section 3D of the Act was issued on 18.04.2006. The respondents do not appear to have committed any illegality or irregularity in this matter. 7. The suggestion as made in the writ petition that the notification under Section 3D of the Act was void for suppression of the earlier notification issued under Section 3A of the Act remains incomplete on facts. As noticed, in relation to the land of Khasra No. 86, earlier, in the notification dated 27.09.2004 as issued under Section 3A of the Act, 0.6869 hectares of land was proposed to be acquired but when the requirement was felt of the land in excess to that notified, Khasra No. 86 was not included in the declaration issued on 28.06.2005. Thereafter, in the fresh notification dated 11.07.2005, as issued under Section 3A of the Act, 0.7250 hectares of the land of khasra was 86 was included; and this land was acquired under the declaration issued under Section 3D of the Act on 18.04.2006. It is not correct to suggest as if once the land of Khasra No. 86 was left out of declaration under Section 3D of the Act, it acquired immunity from acquisition and as if the respondents could not have acquired the required land by adopting due proceedings. 8. It is not correct to suggest as if once the land of Khasra No. 86 was left out of declaration under Section 3D of the Act, it acquired immunity from acquisition and as if the respondents could not have acquired the required land by adopting due proceedings. 8. Noteworthy further it is, and rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the final declaration dated 18.04.2006 has not been challenged by the petitioner. No case is made out for granting any relief to the petitioner. 9. Other suggestions as made in the writ petition about the details and correct description having not been mentioned in the notification or against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 04.04.2005 do not have even a technical value what to say of substance. Of course, there had been some inconsistency in the original notification dated 27.09.2004 wherein the land of Khasra Nos. 85 and 86 was shown as Government land but then, as per the admission of the petitioner as stated in the objection petition dated 24.02.2005 (Annex.2), that was no longer a matter of dispute and the notices had indeed been issued to the concerned khatedars. Moreover, the names of khatedars were indeed mentioned in relation to the land of Khasra No. 85 in the declaration under Section 3D of the Act as issued on 28.06.2005. As already noticed, the land of Khasra No. 86 was not even included in this declaration dated 28.06.2005. Then, in the fresh notification under Section 3A of the Act as issued on 11.07.2005, the land of Khasra No. 86 was included and shown as private property. Putting the things absolutely straight, the declaration thereafter issued on 18.04.2006 under Section 3D of the Act specifically mentions 0.7250 hectares of land of khasra 86 with the names of the khatedars including the petitioner. 10. So far the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 04.04.2005 is concerned, of course the same is not a detailed order but then, not much of the objections on substance of the matter are discernible from the objection-petition (Annex.2) as filed by the petitioner; and then, the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be said to have committed any illegality in taking on record the comments from the Project Officer concerned at whose instance the land was being acquired. Moreover, the said order was passed in relation to the earlier notification dated 27.09.2004; and, as noticed, thereafter the respondents issued the fresh notification in relation to the land of Khasra No. 86 on 11.07.2005 that culminated into the declaration dated 18.04.2006. In the given fact situation, any question on the order dated 04.04.2005 could only be treated as redundant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that the acquisition was not bona fide for it was intended to benefit other land holders related with the Sub-Divisional Officer; and deviation from the existing route came to be suggested only in order to save other persons' land. Apart that there is no foundation with complete particulars and specific averments in the writ petition in this regard nor any private individual has been impleaded as party respondent in relation to such allegations, it is noticed that the respondents have adequately explained in their reply the reasons and circumstances wherefore a particular portion of the existing road at Kms 287.500 to 288.500 was deviated from; essentially for the purpose of reducing the excess number of curves and to improve the geometric. The proposition as stated by the respondents cannot be said to be suffering from any malice, whether on facts or in law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the last that this Court may consider granting adequate relief to the petitioner for the harassment and the loss suffered by him. This Court is unable to find if the respondents have caused any harassment or any loss to the petitioner by taking any proceedings contrary to law. It has also been pointed out during the course of submissions that the requisite compensation has already been paid by the respondents. There appears no reason or basis to consider any interference or granting any relief in this matter. 13. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******