Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2209 (RAJ)

Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
ORDER 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notification dated 23.07.2018 (Annex. 12) so far as it relates to incorporating the land of Khasra No. 147 of Village Mithri, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur for the purpose of construction of bypass road of State Highway, may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the action of the respondents in constructing bypass road through Khasra No. 147 may kindly be declared as illegal as has not been in consonance with provisions of Act of 2013. 2. That by appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed not to take possession of the land of Khasra No. 147 of village Mithri, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur belonging to the petitioner for construction of aforesaid bypass road of State Highway at Village Mithri, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur. 3. That if during the pendency of the present petition, if the respondents undertake any illegal exercise or any coercive action to dispossess the petitioner from land in question then any proceedings/exercise undertaken in pursuance of notification dated 23.07.2018 (Annex.12) may kindly be declared as illegal and possession of property of petitioners may kindly be restored to them will all consequential benefits. 4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bone of contention in the present case is certain land bearing Khasra No. 147 situated at Village Mithri, District Nagaur, which is sought to be taken by the respondents for the construction of National Highway. 3. Learned counsel further submits that on 28.07.2017, a notification was issued proposing the acquisition of land for the purpose of highway, in which the name of various villagers were noted, which included the village of the present petitioners. The said notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act & Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013')- 4. Learned counsel also submits that the land in question was not specified in the notification and it was only in the social impact assessment study that the petitioners' land in question, for the first time, was reflected. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the land in question was not specified in the notification and it was only in the social impact assessment study that the petitioners' land in question, for the first time, was reflected. 5. Learned counsel further submits that certain family members of the petitioners participated in the public hearing and communicated their dissent to the acquisition. 6. Learned counsel also submits that shifting of the original route from Khasra No. 146 to 148 by involving Khasra No.147 will not only increase the length of the highway but will also create a curve, which will be dangerous for the traffic. 7. Learned counsel harps upon the fact that Khasra No. 147 was not initially part of the land sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of highway, but the subsequent manipulation has resulted into the inclusion of the petitioners' land for the purpose of acquisition in question. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the absolute violation of the Act of 2013, the respondents have proceeded, and thus, the whole exercise is unlawful and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the earlier order passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5498/2018, whereby the writ petition was disposed of on being premature with liberty to the petitioners' family members to take the objections before the authority concerned in accordance with the Act of 2013. 10. Learned counsel has shown the document dated 18.12.2017, which is a SIA draft report, and did not include Khasra No. 147, and the same reflects that the respondents themselves did not originally planned to acquire the petitioners' land in Khasra No.147. 11. Learned counsel has also demonstrated from the map (Annex.7) that the Khasra No. 147 was in fact not required to be taken, if the highway in question is kept straight on the line. 12. Learned counsel further submits that for the first time on 23.07.2018, Khasra No.147 came into the documents of the respondents as a proposed acquirable site under Section 11(1) notification. 13. Learned counsel also submits that only 620 meters of highway is affected by the present controversy, and thus, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is called for. 12. Learned counsel further submits that for the first time on 23.07.2018, Khasra No.147 came into the documents of the respondents as a proposed acquirable site under Section 11(1) notification. 13. Learned counsel also submits that only 620 meters of highway is affected by the present controversy, and thus, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is called for. Learned counsel in an alternate submission, submits that in case, if still the acquisition is proceeded within the triangle, which was made between two branches of the highway, the land would become waste for the petitioners, and thus, the respondents be directed to construct the highway in a manner so as not to impact the triangle in question adversely. 14 Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the initiation of the exercise under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2013 did not carry Khasra number in question, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to say that the Khasra number was not mentioned as broadly the village Mithri was mentioned alongwith other villages, and thus, it cannot be said that the Khasra No. 147 was an afterthought. 15. Learned counsels further submit that the report dated 18.12.2017 was SIA's draft report, and thus, carries no consequence for the present adjudication. The mention of draft report is at the footnote of the document itself. 16. Learned counsels also submit that that erroneously Khasra No. 147 was not mentioned in one of the documents, but as soon as the issue came to the knowledge of the respondents, they have issued a notification under Section 11(1) on 27.03.2018marking Khasra No. 147 alongwith Khasra Nos.146 and 148, and this is also there in the final draft report of the SIA. 17. Learned counsels further submit that the highway to the length of 196 kms. is absolutely ready to use except for 50 meters, which has been disputed by the petitioners and for which, the interim order of this Hon'ble Court is operating. 18. Learned counsels also submit that the complete highway with a bottleneck at the disputed site has become accident prone and calls for immediate consideration of this Court. Learned counsels further submit that the petitioners had an opportunity to make their objections under Section 15 before the concerned authority, but rather than doing the same, they have directly approached this Hon'ble Court, and thus, does not call for any interference. Learned counsels further submit that the petitioners had an opportunity to make their objections under Section 15 before the concerned authority, but rather than doing the same, they have directly approached this Hon'ble Court, and thus, does not call for any interference. 19. Learned counsels also submit that they are carrying out the exercise strictly in accordance with the Act of 2013, the social impact assessment study and all other statutory requirements have been duly fulfilled, and thus, it is not a case where the intervention of this Court is called for. 20. Learned counsels further submit that the highway requires a particular alignment, which has been uniformly made by adopting scientific methods and no prejudice to any single person has ever been intended, and thus, the allegations levelled in the writ petition are not correct. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the public projects need not be stalled unless much grave irregularity is pointed out. 22. In the present case, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2013 is on record and clearly mentions the petitioners' village Mithri. The SIA's draft report cannot be considered as a document, which could help the petitioners. The SIA's final report carries the name and details of the petitioners. 23. This Court also takes note of the fact that entering into the factual dispute pertaining to the maps and directions unless something grave is pointed out cannot become a cause of intervening in a matter where there is a highway for the benefit of a common citizen. Section 11 notification clearly mentions the petitioners' name as well as Khasra number and it is also admitted that the petitioners had a remedy to raise their objections under Section 15, which they did not raise, and thus, the proceedings have already culminated into finality. 24. This Court does not find any submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, which could point out any such grave irregularity or illegality, which could persuade this Court to intervene in a matter, where 196 kms. 24. This Court does not find any submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, which could point out any such grave irregularity or illegality, which could persuade this Court to intervene in a matter, where 196 kms. of crucial highway connecting important points of the State, has already been constructed, and only 50 meters of it at one point is creating a bottleneck, which is an accident prone area and is also causing inconvenience to the public at large. 25. In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.