Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2062 (ALL)

Sompal And 5 v. Union Of India Thru Secy. And 3

2013-08-07

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, VIKRAM NATH

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by six persons, all residents of Village Raura Kalan, Kasba and Tehsil Milak, District Rampur. Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of gazette notification dated 21.08.2012 (Annexure No. 6) issued by the Central Government under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The purpose of the aforesaid notification is to acquire lands covered by the notification for constructing/building etc. of National Highway No.24 (Moradabad-Bareilly Section) in the stretch of land from Km. 207.080 to Km. 211.400 for the proposed Milak By-pass in the district of Rampur, U.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an issue which according to him goes to the root of validity of the said notification. The contention is that the notification with respect to plot no.144 showing it to be Government land of non-agriculture in nature and proposed area for acquisition to be 0.4699 hectares, is not a sufficient brief description of the land for two reasons. Firstly, according to petitioners, it is not a Government land and secondly, the total area of plot no.144 is 4.0180 hectares and hence, when the proposal is to acquire only a part of that plot, the description should have been sufficient to enable the persons interested to identify the land proposed to be acquired. 5. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others, AIR 1970 All 414 . In that case, the notification in question did not indicate the plot numbers of the land proposed to be acquired and only indication was that a map has been prepared of such land which may be inspected. The Full Bench held that the description of the land sought to be acquired without giving numbers of the plots but by referring to a map which may be inspected in the office, does not meet with the requirement of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of giving particulars of the land. 6. The Full Bench held that the description of the land sought to be acquired without giving numbers of the plots but by referring to a map which may be inspected in the office, does not meet with the requirement of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of giving particulars of the land. 6. The other judgment on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is that of Apex Court, in the case of Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 SCC 477 . The facts of that case were quite similar as it appears from paragraph no.5, which was referred to us. The problem arose because the brief description given in the notification was not enough for identification of the land sought to be acquired because only part of a larger chunk of land was being acquired. On that ground, the Apex Court had to interfere and hold that the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the Act was not satisfied. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India has submitted on the basis of written instructions that the land has always been recorded in the survey records as Government land without any objection or any proceeding against such entry so far. He has further pointed out that in Annexure 6, the impugned notification, it was clearly indicated just above the Schedule containing brief description of the By-pass land sought to be acquired that "the land plans and other details of the land covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested person at the aforesaid office of the Competent Authority". 8. He has further submitted in reply to the submissions advanced on the basis of two judgments noted above that the issue before the Full Bench of this Court was in an entirely different factual matrix where the plot numbers were not at all indicated in the brief description of the land and hence, in no way, the persons concerned with the plots under acquisition could have known that the lands in which they are interested are under acquisition. With regard to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Competent Authority (supra), he has drawn our attention to paragraph no.7 of the judgment wherein the Court has considered the crucial aspect of the matter after mentioning in paragraph no.6 that in most of the notifications in other cases, plan of the area under acquisition was made part of the notifications to show that the requirement of description of land was met. In paragraph no.7, it was further observed that the availability of the plan could have made all the difference and then it was found that there was absolute absence of reference of a plan in the notification impugned before the Apex Court. 9. Learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India thereafter pointed out that this case is distinguishable because in the impugned notification, there is a clear reference to the land plans and other details of the land covered, which were available and could be inspected at the office of the Competent Authority. According to him, the brief description giving the plot numbers and indicating that a part of that plot was proposed to be acquired was sufficient for identification of the land sought to be acquired in view of further indication in the notification regarding land plans and other details. 10. It is not in dispute that subsequently when no objection etc. were filed by the petitioners, the land has been notified under Section 3-D of the Act on 23rd May, 2013. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted to be true that petitioners have built some constructions or houses on the land sought to be acquired even if the land is that of the Government, they may claim compensation on that account in accordance with law. 11. In view of relevant facts and law noticed above, we are not persuaded to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.