Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 100 (UTT)

Sukhwant Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-02-16

V.K.BIST

body2017
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 3 not to take possession of the land till the arbitrator decide the claim of the petitioner. (ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the objection of the petitioners in a time bound period against the award dated 27.04.2015 in case no. 5/42 year 2015 pending before him from 2015 under National High Way Act 1956.” 3. Facts, in brief, are that petitioners are the bonafide bhoomidhari (freehold property owner) resident of Village Sirohlikala Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. On 23.05.2012 and 12.09.2014, Notification No. 1162(a) and Notification No. 2318 (a) were published under Rule 3(a) of the National Highway Act 1956 for acquiring the land for the purpose of extension and widening to four lane, Highway No. 74 from 175 kilometers to 256 kilometers; certain land situated at village Sihorlikala was acquired under Section 3A of the National Highway Act 1956. The Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital, Udham Singh Nagar (respondent no. 2), on 27.04.2015, published an award order in respect of the land situated at Sirohlikala, Tehsil Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. On 03.07.2015, a letter was issued to the petitioners for handing-over the possession of the land. Against the Notification No. 1162(a) and Notification No. 2318 (a) published Under Rule 3(a) of the National Highway Act 1956, the petitioners filed detailed objection. It is alleged that, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the said objections have been disposed of and an award has been passed on 27.04.2015. Against the said award, petitioners preferred objections under Section 3G(5) and (6) of the National Highway Act, 1956 before the respondent no. 1/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar; but the same have not been decided so far. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said land is situated near Ambedkar Chowk, which is heart of the city and the area is surrounded by various shops, hotels and commercial buildings. 1/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar; but the same have not been decided so far. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said land is situated near Ambedkar Chowk, which is heart of the city and the area is surrounded by various shops, hotels and commercial buildings. There are four petrol pumps, hotel city, palace bar, hotel Geet Palace, Corporation Bank, ATM near the said land and the learned Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital/Udham Singh Nagar has arbitrarily treated the land as an agricultural land, which is incorrect. It is further submitted that the compensation determined by the learned Prescribed Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital/Udham Singh Nagar is at the flat rate applicable to the agricultural land, although the acquired land includes non-agricultural land, commercial and industrial land also. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that objection filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 1, bearing Case No. 51/142, is pending consideration from 24.08.2015 and the respondent no. 1 is not taking any decision in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that direction may be issued to respondent no. 1 for deciding the objection filed by them at the earliest. Shri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 fairly submitted that objection filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to take a decision in accordance with law on the objection filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 8. There will be no order as to costs.