Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1307 (JHR)

Chand Kumari Prasad v. Union of India

2012-09-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 14.1.2011 published in the local newspaper dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure-3) issued under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). 2. It has been stated that without deciding the objection submitted by the petitioners under Section 3C(1) of the said Act, the competent authority (respondent No.5) has proceeded with the acquisition. The process is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that on the basis of the objection filed by the petitioners and other interested persons, enquiries were made at various levels. The main objection of the petitioners is regarding the alignment of the road between Pillar No. 36-A to Pillar No.18 in village Singhani to Oriya, which according to the petitioners affects at least 60 built up concrete houses. The road construction work in either side of village Singhani and Oriya is in advanced stage. The distribution of compensation for the land acquired adjoining to the said villages affected by Hazaribagh bye-pass lane is also at the advanced stage. The alignment passing through the said area has been finalised after conducting thorough survey by consultant engaged by National Highways Authority of India and the same has been found to be the best possible alignment. All the processes were completed and notification under Section 3D of the said Act has been published. The land vested in the Central Government after publication of notification under Section 3D of the said Act and declaration under Sub-section (1) cannot be called in question by any other authority. The petitioners' writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The Project Director of Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India also explained the situation in person in the Court. In the supplementary counter affidavit dated 3.9.2012 it has been specifically stated that when the Chief General Manager (Tech), National Highways Authority of India, Regional Office (Bihar & Jharkhand) himself visited the site along with the Project Director, Manager (Tech), Representative of DPR Consultant and other concerned, instructed the DPR Consultant to explore the possibility of re-alignment within the geometric constraints. The DPR consultant, thereafter, surveyed the site and submitted its report to the Chief General Manager (Tech). After site review of the alignment, the survey team observed that alignment already proposed is best suited with minimum demolition and in view of the environmental and other site constraints. 6. In view of the above, the respondents have brought sufficient materials on record to show that the petitioners' objection against the present alignment and request for review the alignment have been thoroughly considered and found to be not acceptable. The expert in the matter and the authorities have examined the petitioners' grievance at various levels and have clearly observed that the present alignment is best suited with minimum demolition and also in view of the environmental and other site constraints. The construction of 4/6 lane road by widening NH-33 is in larger public interest and even if it causes any inconvenience to a small section of individuals, the public purpose has to be weighed over the interest of an individual or a small section of the persons. 7. In view of the said discussions, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. The personal appearance of Project Director, National Highways Authority of India is dispensed with.