Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 563 (MP)

Vinay Ruthia v. Union Of India And Others

2020-05-13

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. - By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the SDO dated 22/3/2019 holding that the order u/S.3(C) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1966 was already passed and objections have been decided, therefore, fresh opportunity in this regard is not necessary. The petitioner has also challenged the action of demolition of the property and has sought other reliefs. [2] The case of the petitioner is that his land is situated at village Lasudiya Ramnath, Tehsil Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh Biaora and was included in the Notification issued u/S.3-A(1) of the Act dated 24/11/2011 for widening of Bhopal Bioara Section of the existing National Highway No.12. Petitioner along with the other owners had filed objection u/S. 3-C of the Act, but they were mechanically decided without giving opportunity of hearing and thereafter the Notification dated 5/10/2012 was issued u/S.3-D of the Act. Petitioner had filed WP No.694/2013 which was disposed of by order dated 10/7/2013 in terms of the order dated 1/7/2013 passed in similar petition being WP No.2311/2013. According to the petitioner, in WP No.2311/2013 the final order u/S.3-G was not passed whereas in the petitioners case at the time of dismissal of the petition order u/S.3-G was already passed. Petitioner in this back ground had filed WA No.897/2013 which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 23/10/2013 with liberty to file review against the order passed in the writ petition. RP No.629/2013 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 27/11/2014. The petitioner thereafter approached the competent authority seeking opportunity of hearing, but in the mean while the proceedings for possession were initiated, therefore, the petitioner had filed WP No.684/2015 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 14/9/2016 and this order was affirmed by the division bench by order dated 3/1/2017 passed in WA No.420/2016. The competent authority thereafter has heard the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 23/2/2019. According to the petitioner the property standing on the land in question has been demolished and possession has been taken. The competent authority thereafter has heard the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 23/2/2019. According to the petitioner the property standing on the land in question has been demolished and possession has been taken. [3] The respondent No.3 has filed the reply taking the stand that the objection of the petitioner has duly been decided u/S.3- C of the Act and that the award u/S.3-G of the Act has been passed on 3/6/2013 and now the petitioner has remedy of arbitration under Sub-section (5) and (6) of Sec.3-G of the Act read with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [4] Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner while deciding the objection u/S.3(C) of the Act, therefore, all the subsequent proceedings are vitiated. [5] As against this, the stand of the respondents is that this issue has already been concluded in the earlier round. [6] Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed WP No.694/2013 raising the same issue which was disposed of by order dated 10/7/2013 in terms of the order dated 1/7/2013 passed in WP No.2311/2013. In WP No.2311/2013 the direction was to give an opportunity of hearing before passing the order u/S.3-G of the Act. In the case of the petitioner, order u/S.3-G of the Act was already passed on 3/6/2013 and the same was not subject matter of challenge, therefore, such a direction in WP No.694/2013 was inconsequential in the petitioners case. Though, the petitioner had filed WA No.897/2013 against the order dated 10/7/2013 passed in WP No.694/2013 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 23/10/2013, therefore, the petitioner himself had closed his right in this regard. RP No.629/2013 was also dismissed by order dated 27/11/2014. The petitioner had again filed WP No.684/2015 which was disposed of by following order dated 14/9/2016:- 'WP No.684/2015 14/9/2016 Parties through counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 fairly stated before this court that they shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner u/S.3(g) of the National Highway Act, 1966. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall appear before the SDO, Narsinghgarh, district Rajgarh on 03.10.2016 and after hearing the petitioner, the SDO shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall appear before the SDO, Narsinghgarh, district Rajgarh on 03.10.2016 and after hearing the petitioner, the SDO shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of." [7] Though, by the aforesaid order the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the SDO on 3/10/2016 but the petitioner did not appear before the SDO on the said date and did not avail the opportunity of hearing, therefore, with his own lapse he had closed this right also. [8] WA No.420/2016 against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the division bench by order dated 3/1/2017, therefore, in the earlier round of litigation itself all these issues have been concluded. [9] The award u/S.3(G) of the Act has already been passed in respect of the petitioners land. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the same, then he has a remedy of arbitration u/S.3(G) (5) & (6) of the National Highways Act. [10] Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed , however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of Arbitration as prescribed u/S.3(G) (5) & (6) of the Act.