Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 273 (UTT)

Badri Prasad Gupta v. Union of India

2019-04-03

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1829 of 2013 dated 07.12.2017. 2. The appellants’ herein filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.1829 of 2013 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notification issued by the first respondent on 04.07.2012 which was published in the daily newspaper on 15.08.2012; and the order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the third respondent rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners along with 32 others by a common order; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the notification dated 07.07.2012, published on 15.08.2012 in the daily newspaper, till the objections of the petitioners are decided; a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the third respondent to decide the objections afresh, as also the applications filed by the petitioners under the National Highways Act, by a reasoned and speaking order; and a writ of certiorari to quash the declaration under Section 3(D)(1) published on 03.07.2013. 3. The appellants-writ petitioners had contended before the learned Single Judge that the notification dated 04.07.2012 was vague and did not carry the required particulars. The notification, published in the Government of India Gazette dated 04.07.2012, relates to acquisition of several extents of land. We are concerned in this case with the land situated at Village Haripur, Tularam in Haldwani. The appellants-writ petitioners’ land is situated in Survey No.569 of the said village and, in terms of the notification, an extent of 0.5500 hectares of land, in Survey No.569, was sought to be acquired. The impugned notification gives the survey numbers and the extent of land proposed to be acquired in each survey number, as also the type and nature of the land which is shown as private/government, agricultural or non-agricultural respectively. 4. The impugned notification gives the survey numbers and the extent of land proposed to be acquired in each survey number, as also the type and nature of the land which is shown as private/government, agricultural or non-agricultural respectively. 4. The appellants-writ petitioners had, in their additional objections filed to the Section 3(A) notification dated 13.03.2013, contended that the notification, in question, referred only to a lump sum area of 0.5500 hectares of Village Haripur, Tularam of Survey No.569; no boundaries thereof had been given with any specification; Survey No.569 is a very big plot admeasuring 2.464 hectares; as proper details of boundaries of the land, and the measuring distance from the road upto the land to be acquired, had been given in the notification to enable the land under acquisition to be identified, the subject proceedings were illegal and wrong; even the authority itself was not aware as to which part of the land, in Survey No.569, was being proposed for acquisition; and, hence, the proceedings were vague and illegal. 5. In the order dated 03.05.2013, passed pursuant thereto, all that is stated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority is that a report was sought from the Acquisition Division on 05.03.2013 and 15.03.2013; the authorities had submitted their comments/reports vide letter dated 12.03.2013 and 22.03.2013 respectively; in the said reports, they had stated that in the aforesaid area, due to technical aspects, one side widening (eccentric widening) was proposed; accordingly, the land was proposed for acquisition; the appellants-writ petitioners had contended that, in the notification issued under Section 3(A), the boundaries of the land had not been mentioned nor were details of the land in survey No.569 furnished; it was apparent that, for the purpose of widening four lane/two lane of National Highway No.87, land was required; as far as the boundaries of Survey No.569 were concerned, the same would be determined by demarcating/fixing the poles by the National Highways Authority; and, accordingly, the aforesaid comments/objections were liable to be rejected. 6. Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “1956 Act”) relates to the power to acquire land. 6. Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “1956 Act”) relates to the power to acquire land. Under sub-section (1) thereof, where the Central Government is satisfied that, for a public purpose, any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. Section 3(A)(2) requires every notification, under sub-section (1), to give a brief description of the land. Sub-section (3) requires the competent authority to cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in vernacular language. Section 3(C) relates to hearing of objections, and under sub-section (1) thereof, any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. Section 3(C)(2) stipulates that every objection, under sub-section (1), shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof; the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner; and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Section 3(C)(3) makes any order made by the competent authority, under sub-section (2), final. 7. The right to file objections under Section 3(C)(1) and (2) of the 1956 Act is a valuable right and in a catena of judgments, relating to an identical provision under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Supreme Court has held that the right conferred on the owner, or the person interested, to file objections to the proposed acquisition is not only an important and valuable right, but also makes the provision for compulsory acquisition just. [Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust Vs. Union of India and others (2012) 11 SCC 370 ; Anand Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 11 SCC 242 ; Raja Anand Brahma Shah Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1967 SC 1081 ; Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1971) 3 SCR 871 ; Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. [Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust Vs. Union of India and others (2012) 11 SCC 370 ; Anand Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 11 SCC 242 ; Raja Anand Brahma Shah Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1967 SC 1081 ; Jage Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1971) 3 SCR 871 ; Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 133 ; State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471 ; Deepak Pahwa Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1984) 4 SCC 308 ; State of U.P. Vs. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251 ; Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84 ; Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549 ; Meerut Development Authority Vs. Satbir Singh (1996) 11 SCC 462 ; Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. (1998) 6 SCC 1 ; Union of India Vs. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 ; Mahadevappa Lachappa Kinagi Vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 12 SCC 418 ; Babu Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 10 SCC 115 ; Tika Ram Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 10 SCC 689 ; Prabhawati and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (2014) 13 SCC 721 ; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 ; Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337 and; Shyam Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1993) 4 SCC 255 ]. 8. The objections raised by the appellants-writ petitioners, in the present case, is that the notification was vague as it did not specify which part of the land, in Survey No.569, was being acquired. As noted hereinabove, while the total extent of land in Survey No.569 of Village Haripur, Tularam is about 2.464 hectares, it is only a part thereof, i.e. of an extent of 0.5500 hectares, which is being acquired. The owners of the land are entitled to know whether their plots and buildings, which fall in Survey No.569, are being acquired in its entirety or partially. The owners of the land are entitled to know whether their plots and buildings, which fall in Survey No.569, are being acquired in its entirety or partially. It is only if the land owners had been made aware, as to which part of Survey No.569 was sought to be acquired for the purpose of laying the National Highway, could they have availed the opportunity of filing their objections in proceedings under Section 3(C) of the 1956 Act. 9. As noted hereinabove, the valid objections raised by the appellants-writ petitioners has been perfunctorily rejected by the competent authority without dealing with them, and by shifting the onus on to the National Highways Authority to determine the exact extent later. 10. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has merely stated that the Court had gone through the notification, and the exact description of the land, along with survey numbers, type of land, and the nature of land; the areas have been mentioned; and it could not be said that the notification dated 04.07.2012 was vague and sketchy. 11. We find considerable force in the submission of Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, that the learned Single Judge ought to have assigned reasons as to why it came to the conclusion that the notification did not suffer from vagueness; and merely stating that they had gone through the notification, and were satisfied that it was not vague, would not suffice. While we are in agreement with the submission of Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, that the notification, issued under Section 3(A)(1) of the 1956 Act, is vague; the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in holding to the contrary; the appellants-writ petitioners appear to have been denied their valuable right under Section 3(C)(1) of the 1956 Act; and their constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, not to be deprived of their property save in accordance with law, may have been violated, the fact remains that an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.09.2016, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, and the said award has not even been subjected to challenge either in this Writ Petition or in other legal proceedings. 12. 12. In more or less similar circumstance, the Supreme Court, in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory & others, (2005) 13 SCC 477 , held that, wherever the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger piece of land, and there is no description as to which portion was being acquired, that would result in the land owners being unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about user of the acquired land for the purposes specified under the Act; where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone; and every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. While holding that the notification impugned therein did not meet the statutory mandate and was vague, as the acquisition notification did not let the person, whose land was sought to be acquired, know what he was going to lose, the Supreme Court held that, since the construction of National Highway had already been completed, no useful purpose would be served by quashing the notification at that stage. 13. In the present case the award, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer during the pendency of these writ proceedings, has not been subjected to challenge. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court, therefore, to now quash the notification even in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the award. 14. While we see no reason to interfere with the impugned notification at this stage, suffice it to make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the appellants-writ petitioners from availing their legal remedies under the Act, to seek enhancement of compensation, before the competent authority. 15. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.