Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 141 (GUJ)

JABBERSINH SAVANSINH v. UNION OF INDIA

2011-02-28

D.H.WAGHELA, K.A.PUJ

body2011
JUDGMENT : K.A.PUJ – 1. Since common issue is involved in all the three petitions, the same are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In all the three petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the alleged acquisition of petitioners' lands falling in Survey Nos.704, 706 & 707 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat, made by the respondent No.1 is not covered by the Notification dated 06.10.2009 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (II) for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.6 under the provisions of Section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners have also prayed for a prohibitory order restraining the respondents from publishing any declaration of acquisition under Section 3D of the said Act, as far as the lands of the petitioners falling in Survey Nos.704, 706 & 707 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat are concerned and the property which is marked by red and yellow colour marking by the National Highway Authority, Surat. 3. This Court has issued notice as to admission and interim relief on 01.09.2010. On 15.09.2010, this Court granted leave to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10489 & 10490 of 2010 for amendment and accordingly, further prayers are made by the said petitioners seeking declaration that the Notification dated 17.08.2010 is illegal, void and ultra vires the provisions of the Act, in so far as it acquires the lands owned by the petitioners being different parts of Revenue Survey Nos.704 & 706 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are as under : Special Civil Application No.10489 of 2010 5. The petitioners are the plot holders in Survey No.704 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat. They are the owners of separate parts of said Survey No.704 which is mutated in the revenue records as Survey No.704/P. The petitioners have made construction of shops over the area which came to their share from Survey No.704 of village Ichhapore. The total area of Survey No.704 of Village Ichhapore was 10218 Sq. Mts. However, in the year 1986, land admeasuring about 9004 Sq. Mts. was acquired for the public purpose of Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) and, therefore, Survey No.704 was divided into Survey No.704/1 and Survey No.704/2. The total area of Survey No.704 of Village Ichhapore was 10218 Sq. Mts. However, in the year 1986, land admeasuring about 9004 Sq. Mts. was acquired for the public purpose of Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) and, therefore, Survey No.704 was divided into Survey No.704/1 and Survey No.704/2. All the petitioners, therefore, lost total area of 9004 Sq. Mts. from Survey No.704 of village Ichhapore in the year 1986, and only 1214 Sq. Mts. remained out of which 8 petitioners have claimed their ownership of their respective small area. Substantial portion of land acquired for the public purpose of KRIBHCO is still unutilized and even after construction of KRIBHCO Heavy Water Township, the open area of land touching the main road is still vacant. Special Civil Application No.10490 of 2010 6. The petitioner is the plot holder in Survey No.706 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat. He has constructed shop over the area which came to his share from Survey No.706 of village Ichhapore. The total area of Survey No.706 was 12039 Sq. Mts. However, in the year 1986, admeasuring about 9611 Sq. Mts. was acquired for the public purpose of KRIBHCO. Therefore, substantial portion of the petitioners' land was already acquired for public purpose of KRIBHCO. In this case also, substantial portion of land is still unutilized and even after construction of KRIBHCO Heavy Water Township, the open area of land touching the main road i.e. National Highway No.6 is still vacant. Special Civil Application No.10492 of 2010 7. The petitioner is the plot holder in Survey No.707 of village Ichhapore, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat. He has put up construction over the land as the said land is a Gamtal land of village Ichhapore and the construction made is assessed for tax by Ichhapore Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has been paying tax to the Gram Panchayat. The total area of Survey No.706 was 2223 Sq. Mts. out of which construction is made on about 136 Sq. Mts. of land and the construction of residential premises has also been made on about 162 Sq. Mts. of land. 8. The total area of Survey No.706 was 2223 Sq. Mts. out of which construction is made on about 136 Sq. Mts. of land and the construction of residential premises has also been made on about 162 Sq. Mts. of land. 8. It is the case of the petitioners in all the three petitions that Notification is published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) which has declared that the lands of village Ichhapore shown in the schedule to the said Notification are required by the Central Government for the purpose of National Highway No.6, for building (widening, 4 X 6 laning etc.,) maintenance, management and operation of said Highway No.6. The Schedule to the said Notification specifically provides for brief description of the land as required under Section 3A (ii) of the Act. A brief description on the land shown in the Schedule specifically provides for (i) Survey Number, (ii) type of land, (iii) nature of land, and (iv) the area in hectares. In Column No.4, Village Ichhapore, the survey number, the type of land, the nature of land and area in hectares, are mentioned. The Notification specifically refers the type of the land as 'KRIBHCO land'. As and when the land of private ownership is acquired, the type of land is specifically shown as 'private' in the said Notification. The National Highway Authority have already placed markings on the constructed property of the petitioners' land in red and yellow colour which shows that the constructed portion in full or in part will have to be pulled down. 9. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have pointed out to the National Highway Authority that on the other side of the road, there are 10 Survey Numbers belonging to KRIBHCO and 18 Survey Numbers belonging to GSPL and NTPC which were initially required for acquisition. However, because of the influence of the said public authorities and in particular of KRIBHCO, the National Highway is diverted over a canal and because of that, the land of the petitioner on the other side of National Highway No.6 including the constructed buildings thereon gets affected. Though the petitioners have asked for an authorized map to show the exact marking for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.6 before the competent authority, the same was not made available to the petitioners. Though the petitioners have asked for an authorized map to show the exact marking for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.6 before the competent authority, the same was not made available to the petitioners. The petitioners have made the representation to the competent authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Branch-I, Surat in June 2010. Pursuant to the said representation, the petitioners were called for hearing. At the time of hearing, it transpired that the portion of the petitioners' land is now being acquired including the constructed portion of the shop. The petitioners, therefore, filed detailed objections pointing out that the petitioners' only source of income being from house/rent of the shop, the petitioners would lose their livelihood. According to the markings placed by the National Highway Authority, some shops would be completely demolished and some other shops were to be demolished in part. The petitioners, therefore, pointed out in their objections that if the open and vacant land of KRIBHCO is acquired on the other side of the road, the individuals whose only source of income is from the constructed residential and business premises would not be affected. 10. The petitioners have also pointed out that Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) has already prescribed 30 meter wide road from Ichhapore Cross Road to Mora Village in the development plan. The same is placed in reservation for the last more than 15 years. If the said road is used as National Highway, there would not be any insistence to acquire the land of the petitioners for widening of National Highway No.6. They have also pointed out that only because of the influence exerted by KRIBHCO, NTPC and GSPL, the national highway which was in a straight line is made into a curve. They have further pointed out that according to original decision, the lands of KRIBHCO, NTPC & GSPL were affected and the National Highway was going through 10 Survey Numbers of KRIBHCO and 18 Survey Numbers of GSPL and NTPC, which are open and vacant lands. They have also pointed out that once final declaration of acquisition is made under Section 3D of the said Act, the petitioners would lose a portion of the land which is now alleged to have been acquired and it will vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions claiming aforesaid reliefs therein. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions claiming aforesaid reliefs therein. 11. Ms. Ketty A. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the three petitions has submitted that acquisition of the land of the petitioners is absolutely illegal, ultravires, bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The land of the petitioners is not part of the Notification which is published in the Official Gazette as well as in the local newspapers and the land of KRIBHCO is shown as the lands required for the purpose of National Highway. As per Section 3 A(ii) of the said Act, description of the land must clearly show that the land of KRIBHCO from Survey Nos.704, 706 & 707 is acquired. However, for some extraneous consideration, the petitioners' land is being affected without authority of law. She has, therefore, submitted that the alleged acquisition from the petitioners' land is not only ultravires the provisions of Section 3A of the said Act but is also without any authority of law. Once final declaration of acquisition is made under Section 3D of the said Act, the petitioners would loose the portion of the land, which is now alleged to have been acquired and vests absolutely in Central Government without any authority of law. She has further submitted that the National Highway Authority has not given any authorized map, to show the exact marking for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.6. The initial widening of the road was affecting the open land of KRIBHCO and GSPL and the National Highway Authority was going through 10 Survey Numbers of KRIBHCO and 18 Survey Numbers of GSPL & NTPC which are open land. Because of the influence of the said public authorities, the decision of widening of National Highway No.6 was changed and instead of straight road, the road was made with a curvature. The acquisition authority has, therefore, without any authority and without there being any notification as required under Section 3A of the Act has unilaterally changed the decision of widening of National Highway No.6 and the same has affected the lands of the petitioners, which is fully constructed leaving open area as per the Ribbon Development Rules. She has further submitted that the land acquired for KRIBHCO is still lying vacant and there is no construction thereon. She has further submitted that the land acquired for KRIBHCO is still lying vacant and there is no construction thereon. Only with a malafide intention and to illegally give advantage to the public authorities, the lands of the petitioners is being affected. The map clearly shows that the road proposed for Ichhapore junction to Mora junction connecting Hajira port is a straight road whereas the marking placed on the petitioners' property shows that the straight road gets curved and affects the petitioners' lands. 12. During the pendency of this petition, notification under Section 3D of the said Act was issued on 17.08.2010 and hence, the said Notification was also challenged by way of an amendment. She has submitted that the allegations made in the petition regarding malafide exercise of power to save KRIBHCO land and illegally including the petitioners' lands stand justified in view of publication of notification under Section 3D of the Act. 13. Mrs. Mehta further submitted that under Section 3A of the Act, the competent authority is required to allow or disallow the objections of the petitioners by an order in writing. The order should be given to the petitioners as per the rules of natural justice. Despite an application to this effect, no copy is supplied which gives rise to an adverse inference that no order as required under Section 3A of the Act is passed. Since the mandatory provisions of Section 3A are not followed, any subsequent action based on illegal and void exercise of power is equally void in law. She has, therefore, submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities must be held to be unjust, improper, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. She has, therefore, submitted that the reliefs prayed for in all the three petitions are required to be granted and the petitions be allowed accordingly. 14. On service of notice, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. N. K. Khare, learned advocate appeared for respondent No.4 i.e. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the main contesting respondent. An affidavit-in-reply is filed by Shri C. K. Sinha, Project Director of the Project Implementation Unit of NHAI. Based on this affidavit, Mr. 14. On service of notice, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. N. K. Khare, learned advocate appeared for respondent No.4 i.e. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the main contesting respondent. An affidavit-in-reply is filed by Shri C. K. Sinha, Project Director of the Project Implementation Unit of NHAI. Based on this affidavit, Mr. Joshi has submitted that part of National Highway No.6 between Gujarat and Maharashtra border – Surat – Hazira is presently under construction through NHAI for widening to four laning works on BOT – DBFO (Design, Build, Finance & Operate) basis under NHDP Phase – III. This four laning work was awarded by NHAI vide Concession Agreement dated 18.05.2009 in favour of M/s. Soma Isolux Surat-Hazira Private Limited and construction work started for the project w.e.f. 30.03.2010 with 910 days construction period which expires on 25.09.2012. As per this agreement, the additional land required for the purpose of execution of contract is to be acquired by NHAI on behalf of Central Government and be made available to the said party for the construction work in advance. As per the established procedure, the process of acquisition of land is to commence as early as possible and for that purpose, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority is to be appointed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority was appointed by the Central Government and Notification was published vide Gazette of India – Extraordinary Part - II Section 3(ii) dated 30.06.2009 for the purpose of land acquisition on NH No.6 from 49.700 KM on Dhulia – Surat Section to 29.100 KM on Surat – Hazira Section, in the State of Gujarat. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority has thereafter initiated the land acquisition process for the project by following due process of law as prescribed under Section 3 of the Act. 15. Mr. Joshi further submitted that detailed land acquisition proposal for acquisition of additional land, 44 Villages along NH-6 under Surat District required for the execution of NH-6 Project was submitted to Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, Surat. 15. Mr. Joshi further submitted that detailed land acquisition proposal for acquisition of additional land, 44 Villages along NH-6 under Surat District required for the execution of NH-6 Project was submitted to Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, Surat. Thereafter, notification under Section 3A for Surat Division (Bardoli, Palsana, Chorasi and Surat City, Taluka) was published vide notification dated 06.10.2009, inter alia, declaring the land intended to be acquired as brought out in the notification for public purpose and invited objections, if any, from the land owners within 21 days from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A. The substance of this gazette notification was also published in local newspapers as provided under Section 3A (3) of the Act in newspapers being Indian Express and Sandesh, both dated 13.11.2009 published from Ahmedabad & Surat respectively. 16. Mr. Joshi further submitted that upon publication of notification in the local newspapers and as per the provisions contained under Section 3B of the Act, the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Surat carried out the exercise of joint measurement survey upon payment of fee by NHAI as demanded by them for the purpose and upon completion of “joint measurement survey”, the DILR prepared the land acquisition plan and thereafter the objections were raised amongst others by the petitioners and hearing was held on 10.06.2010 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Branch 1, Surat and Competent Authority. The very fact that the objections were raised and hearing took place before the Special Land Acquisition Officer is self demonstrative of the fact that the petitioners were fully aware of the acquisition aspect of their lands for public purpose. The said hearing was granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the provisions contained in Section 3C (2) of the Act and the order was passed by the Competent Authority on 09.07.2010 and the report was forwarded to the Project Director of NHAI vide forwarding letter dated 09.07.2010, inter alia, reporting that the Gazette Notification under Section 3D (1) of the Act be made. It was clearly brought out in this report dated 09.07.2010 that the objections raised by the land owners were duly considered and overruled. The objections were raised amongst other by such petitioners who desired to do so, in response to Gazette Notification and publication made in the newspapers. It was clearly brought out in this report dated 09.07.2010 that the objections raised by the land owners were duly considered and overruled. The objections were raised amongst other by such petitioners who desired to do so, in response to Gazette Notification and publication made in the newspapers. The map pertaining to the proposed acquisition of land was prepared by DILR which was submitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Branch 1, Surat and Competent Authority and thereafter the said Competent Authority heard the objections wherein the map drawn by DILR relating to the land and acquisition was shown to the land owners and after overruling the said objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an order and submitted a report to the Central Government in respect thereof. 17. Mr. Joshi further submitted that as per Section 3D (4) of the Act, a declaration made by the Central Government under Section 3D (1) shall not be called in question in any Court or by any other authority. The land owners as per the further provisions contained under the Act, are entitled to receive compensation as may be determined by the Competent Authority and the process in respect thereof is in progress. He has, therefore, submitted that the challenge in the present petition made by the petitioners to the acquisition of their land is wholly unsustainable. 18. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the total area of the land of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10489 of 2010 has been shown as 2395 Sq. Mts. The petitioners have themselves stated that upon acquisition of 9004 Sq. Mts. land of KRIBHCO during the year 1986, Survey No.704 was divided into 704/1 and 704/2 meaning thereby that Survey No.704 had lost its identity as a single Survey Number from 1986 itself. However, 3A notification refers to Survey No.704 and those petitioners who felt aggrieved from the said notification have submitted their objections. The area published in the gazette is 0.201 Hectres = 2010 Sq. Mts. The major part of this Survey No.704 belonged to KRIBHCO and hence, under Column No.6 of the Gazette Notification dated 06.10.2009, the type of land was shown as KRIBHCO. He has, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that the notification for Survey No.704 did not include the land of the petitioners. Mts. The major part of this Survey No.704 belonged to KRIBHCO and hence, under Column No.6 of the Gazette Notification dated 06.10.2009, the type of land was shown as KRIBHCO. He has, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that the notification for Survey No.704 did not include the land of the petitioners. The notification under Section 3A pertains to the entire Survey No.704 on the basis of the then revenue map and records available with DILR and it was during the joint measurement survey that sub-plot No.704/2 and 704/3 came to be identified and these Survey numbers were demarcated in the sketch map prepared for the purpose by DILR. The petitioners were, therefore, fully aware of the fact that the land was under acquisition and it was only on that basis that they had submitted their objections under Section 3C of the Act. Similarly, in the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.10490 of 2010, the land under Survey No.706 from both sides of the existing road has been acquired for widening of the National Highway No.6. Out of total area admeasuring about 2260 Sq. Mts. acquired for public purpose, an area admeasuring about 1889 Sq. Mts. belongs to provite parties. This area of 1889 Sq. Mts. as per 3D notification is owned by 8 persons and not by the petitioner alone as sought to be contended by the petitioner. So far as acquisition of land under Survey No.706 owned by KRIBHCO is concerned, area of 371 Sq. Mts. has already been acquired and notification under Section 3A for acquisition of additional area of 903 Sq. Mts. has been published vide notification dated 17.08.2010. In this case also, the major part of Survey No.706 belonged to KRIBHCO and hence, under Column No.6 of the Gazette Notification dated 06.10.2009, the type of land was shown as KRIBHCO. Similarly, in the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No.10492 of 2010, the total area notified under Section 3A pertaining to Survey No.707 is an area of 1570 Sq. Mts. Out of this area, the land belonging to the petitioner and others as per Section 3D notification comes to 874 Sq. Mts. The remaining portion which is situated on the other side of the road admeasuring about 696 Sq. Mts., belonged to other private parties. Mts. Out of this area, the land belonging to the petitioner and others as per Section 3D notification comes to 874 Sq. Mts. The remaining portion which is situated on the other side of the road admeasuring about 696 Sq. Mts., belonged to other private parties. Thus, it is factually incorrect statement of the petitioner to say that the area acquired is more than what has been notified under Section 3A of the Act. 19. Mr. Khare has further submitted that so far as the suggestions of the petitioners that the road to be constructed on existing canal which has become useless is concerned, the Irrigation department is of the view that the said Canal is functional and the National Highway is being broadened for four laning as per the plan which has been approved by the Competent Authority on the basis of technical recommendation and feasibility of construction. He further submitted that the contract has already been awarded. The Scheme itself involves acquisition of private lands involving number of land owners scattered in 44 Villages throughout the stretch of the road. Considering this fact, it is not possible to accommodate the views of the private owners at the cost of the construction of road and creation of infrastructure for overall development and economic growth of the area and wider benefit of the same to the Society at large. He further submitted that the petitioners have concocted the story relating to the presumption that it was KRIBHCO land which was under acquisition and not their lands. 20. Mr. Joshi has fairly conceded the fact that some change in alignment of the road has been made after obtaining due approval of Competent Authority. However, the said change in alignment is away by more than 500 Mts. from the petitioners' lands. It is only because of the fact that the stretch after Kawas patiya, on the northern side of NH-6, there is KRIBHCO Township and on southern side, there is irrigation canal running parallel to NH-6 and, therefore, it was proposed to acquire land from Northern side of NH-6 towards KRIBHCO township area by utilizing the existing road. It is only because of the fact that the stretch after Kawas patiya, on the northern side of NH-6, there is KRIBHCO Township and on southern side, there is irrigation canal running parallel to NH-6 and, therefore, it was proposed to acquire land from Northern side of NH-6 towards KRIBHCO township area by utilizing the existing road. After confirmation from Irrigation department, however, it was decided to take the land of the irrigation canal on southern side to meet the requirement of NH-6 project by utilizing the existing road and KRIBHCO also furnished their consent for providing the land of southern side of NH-6 beyond irrigation canal to relocate the irrigation canal in their own land of KRIBHCO Plant side. The decision of shifting in alignment towards existing canal was taken by the Authority after publication of 3A notification. He further submitted that in this particular stretch, under which the land of the petitioners does not fall, and on both the sides, the lands belong to KRIBHCO and no other party except irrigation department is going to be affected by the said change in alignment and irrigation department had already given its willingness for this alteration. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioners' understanding in this regard is not correct and no influence of any nature of any authority including that of the concerned Minister as alleged, has played any role and it is actually in the interest of the construction of the Highway that some change in the alignment was made without adversely affecting the acquisition of land of any private party. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have not made out a case warranting intervention of this Court under its extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of any relief as prayed for in the petition. Hence, all the three petitions deserve to be dismissed. 21. Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer. An affidavit-in-reply is filed reiterating the contentions raised by NHAI. Mr. Jani adopted the arguments canvassed on behalf of NHAI and submitted that petitions deserve to be dismissed. 22. On behalf of respondent No.3 – KRIBHCO, an affidavit-in-reply is filed. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt has submitted that the petitions are not maintainable in law as well as on facts. Mr. Jani adopted the arguments canvassed on behalf of NHAI and submitted that petitions deserve to be dismissed. 22. On behalf of respondent No.3 – KRIBHCO, an affidavit-in-reply is filed. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt has submitted that the petitions are not maintainable in law as well as on facts. The petitioners have deliberately made false statements with a view to misguide this Court and on this ground alone, the petitions should not be entertained. He further submitted that no influence on NHAI or the Central Government has been brought by the Officers of KRIBHCO as alleged by the petitioners. He further submitted that on the opposite side of the petitioners' lands, the land has been acquired for and on behalf of department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India. In so far as the petitioners lands vis-a-vis the land of department of Atomic Energy is concerned, there is no variation / delineation between the original plan as proposed by NHAI and the existing plan. No change was affected vis-a-vis the petitioners' lands sought to be originally acquired and that on the opposite side, it is belonging to the department of Atomic Energy, presently under the ownership of KRIBHCO. On the opposite side of the petitioners lands, there is a township of department of Atomic Energy and on the road side, there are many underground pipelines, electrical cables, high-tension lines and other infrastructures. It is only because of this, there was slight variation between the original plan and the existing plan. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 23. Mr. P. S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India has also adopted the arguments made by Mr. Joshi on behalf of NHAI and submitted that proper procedure has been followed for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question and no interference is called for in the matter. 24. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the documents produced on record in light of the relevant notifications issued by the respondent authorities in respect of acquisition of lands for widening of the road of N.H. No.6, the objections raised by the petitioners and the submissions made on their behalf before the Court opposing the impugned notifications, do not appear to have much substance. The objections raised by the petitioners are broadly summarized as under : i. Lands already acquired earlier is still lying vacant. ii. Lands originally sought to be acquired was different from the lands now sought to be acquired. iii. It is only because of the pressure having been brought by KRIBHCO, GSPL & NTPC, change in the alignment of the road is made, which adversely affected the lands of the petitioners. On the lands of the petitioners sought to be acquired, there is an existing construction and it is main source of income for the petitioners, whereas KRIBHCO's land is open and vacant and if the said land is acquired for widening of road, the lands and construction thereon of the petitioners could be saved. iv. If the canal is being used for the purpose of widening the road and to some extent, the change in alignment was made by making use of the canal, only with a view to save the lands of KRIBHCO, the petitioners lands could have also been saved by making further use of the canal. v. Because of the change in alignment, the road would be made with a curveture instead of straight road. 25. If all the objections raised and/or suggestions made by the petitioners are objectively and dispassionately considered, keeping in mind the provisions contained under the Act and the explanations given by the respondent authorities in respect thereof, the Court is of the view that all these petitions are devoid of any merits or substance. Section 3A notification was issued on 30.06.2009. Concession Agreement was entered into by NHAI with M/s. Soma Isolux Surat-Hazira Private Limited and the construction work was started on 30.03.2010. It was to be completed within 910 days i.e. on or before 25.09.2012. After issuance of notification under Section 3A of the Act and after giving wide publicity to the said notification, objections were invited, joint measurement survey was carried out with the help of DILR and after considering the objections and giving an opportunity of being heard, the order was passed by the competent authority on 09.07.2010. During the pendency of the petitions, declaration was made under Section 3D (1) of the Act and once such declaration is made, the scope for interference by this Court is very limited. During the pendency of the petitions, declaration was made under Section 3D (1) of the Act and once such declaration is made, the scope for interference by this Court is very limited. There is no question of constructing the road on the existing canal in view of the fact that the irrigation department is of the view that the said canal is functional. The National Highway No.6 is widened pursuant to the plan approved by the competent authority on the basis of technical recommendations and feasibility of construction. The Scheme itself involves acquisition of private lands involving number of land owners scattered in 44 villages. Hence, it was practically impossible for the authorities to accommodate the views of the petitioners. A proper explanation is also given by the National Highway Authority with regard to the change in alignment of the road. As a matter of fact, there is no change in alignment so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned. Simply because change of alignment is made qua other lands, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that the same change in alignment should be made in relation to their lands too. The Irrigation department has given its approval only after decision was taken to the effect that the land of the irrigation canal on southern side could be used to meet the requirement of N.H. No.6 Project by utilising the existing road and also upon consent of KRIBHCO for providing the land of southern side of N.H. No.6 beyond irrigation canal to relocate the irrigation canal in their own land. No other party except the irrigation department was to be affected in the said change in alignment and irrigation department had already given its consent for such alteration. It was not done because of any influence of KRIBHCO or any other agency and no one is proved to have played any role as alleged by the petitioners. 26. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners for showing any indulgence in these petitions. All the three petitions are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged without any order as to costs.