Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 464 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-07

INDERJEET SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.07.2018 (Annex.9) whereby, the objections submitted by the petitioners were dismissed by the competent authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent - National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter to be mentioned as "NHAI") issued a Notification dated 15.03.2018 (Annex.2) for acquisition of certain land, including the land of the present petitioners for construction of National Highway. The petitioners, after issuance of the notification by the NHAI, submitted their objections and the said objections were rejected by the competent authority, after hearing the petitioners, vide order dated 10.07.2018 (Annex.9). Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.07.2018 rejecting their objections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the competent authority has rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners, along with objections of other khatedars, in a mechanical manner and only in one day, as many as 79 objections were decided by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submitted that there is clear non-application of the mind on the part of the competent authority while rejecting the objections of the petitioners. Learned counsel also submitted that the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the competent authority rejecting the objections of the petitioner is a non-speaking order and hence, prayed for quashing of the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land in question was acquired by the NHAI for construction of National Highway as per the standard specifications and the design for the same has been prepared by the expert persons in the field. Learned counsel further submitted that the objections of the petitioners were rightly rejected by the competent authority and, therefore, no interference is required in the order passed by the competent authority. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69 wherein, in para 24, it has been held as under:- "24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. Kushala Shetty & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69 wherein, in para 24, it has been held as under:- "24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project ad whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullity the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained." 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the land of the petitioners is going to be acquired by the respondent - NHAI for construction of National Highway and the design for the same has been prepared by the experts in the field of highways, therefore, no interference is required in the order impugned dated 10.07.2018 by this Court and; secondly, the present project for construction of National Highway in question is of national importance, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.