Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 746 (JHR)

Sushma Agarwal v. Union of India

2021-09-13

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing notification dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) so far as the same relates to acquisition of the land of the petitioner for establishing toll plaza at Mauza-Putru (Kms. 274.500) on National Highway-33 contending that the same is in gross violation of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2008”) in particular, rule 8(2) thereof since the proposed toll plaza is within 60 kilometres of the existing toll plaza at Kokpara (Kms. 309.625) and no reason in writing has been recorded prior to such acquisition in terms with first proviso to rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008. Further prayer has been made for quashing letter dated 23.03.2021 issued by the respondent no. 5/GM(T)-cum-Project Director, Project Implementation Unit-Jamshedpur, National Highways Authority of India, Kandrabera, Seraikella-Kharsawan, whereby post facto reasons have been given for establishing a toll plaza at “Putru” which is 35 Kms. from the succeeding toll plaza at “Kokpara.” The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from taking possession of her land pursuant to notification dated 23.10.2020. It is further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to relocate the proposed toll plaza at Mouza-Putru (Kms. 274.500) in a manner consistent with rule 8 of the Rules, 2008 and thereafter fresh notification for the said purpose be issued as may be necessary in view of the National Highways Act, 1956. 2. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner purchased the land situated at plot nos. 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, Halka No. II, Khata No. 95, Mouza-Putru, measuring an area of 0.7385673 hectares, Taluka and Sub-Division-Ghatsila (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2003. The said land is situated near National Highway-33 running in stretch through the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner having come to know that the National Highways Authority of India was intending to acquire the said land for establishing a new toll plaza, made a representation dated 07.03.2021 to the respondent no. 5 raising objection against the proposed acquisition of her land for establishing a toll plaza which was replied by the respondent no. The petitioner having come to know that the National Highways Authority of India was intending to acquire the said land for establishing a new toll plaza, made a representation dated 07.03.2021 to the respondent no. 5 raising objection against the proposed acquisition of her land for establishing a toll plaza which was replied by the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 23.03.2021 stating that the said toll plaza was being constructed to plug leakages in toll collection occurring at Galudih (Kms. 277.568), Ghatshila (Kms. 287.00) and Dhalbhumgarh (Kms. 300.820). It was further stated in the said reply that the acquisition procedure for the said land had been completed by depositing the required compensation with the District Land Acquisition Officer, East Singhbhum and the physical possession of the land by NHAI was under progress. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that National Highways Act, 1956 has been enacted declaring certain Highways to be National Highways and for the matters connected therewith. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1956, the Central Government framed the Rules, 2008 for collection of fee for use of sections of national highways, permanent bridges, by-passes and tunnels. It is further submitted that rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 makes it clear that once a toll plaza is established on a National Highway, any other toll plaza on the same section of National Highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 Kms. Its purpose is thus clear and unambiguous that on the same section of a National Highway and towards the same direction, there must be a distance of 60 Kms. between two toll plazas within which no other toll plaza can be established. The intent behind such rule is to restrict the respondents from exercising unabridged power to establish toll plazas at any stretch of national highway. The said rule also connotes that the fee levied at a toll plaza is sufficient for use of 60 kilometers on a national highway. The intent behind such rule is to restrict the respondents from exercising unabridged power to establish toll plazas at any stretch of national highway. The said rule also connotes that the fee levied at a toll plaza is sufficient for use of 60 kilometers on a national highway. It is also submitted that the first proviso to rule 8(2) provides that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another toll plaza within a distance of 60 kilometers, however, this proviso is in the nature of an exception to the main rule and, hence must be mandatorily and strictly complied. The rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 is couched in a negative language and has used the word “shall not” meaning thereby that it is mandatory in nature. In the present case, undoubtedly the proposed toll plaza at “Mouza-Putru” is only 35.5 Kms. away from the next toll plaza established at “Kokapra” and no reason in writing was provided by the respondents at the time of acquiring the petitioner's land for construction of toll plaza within a distance of 60 Kms. from another toll plaza. Since it was quite clear that the toll plaza to be constructed on the petitioner's land at “Mouza-Putru” was within 60 Kms. from the succeeding toll plaza at “Kokpara” it was incumbent upon the respondents to provide reasons in writing at the time of acquiring the said land and on this ground alone, the acquisition process of the petitioner's land is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that only when the petitioner represented the respondent no. 5, he intimated the petitioner by providing reasons in writing for establishing the toll plaza at Mouza-Putru, which is within 60 kilometers of the succeeding toll plaza at Kokpara. The Rules, 2008 do not contemplate or permit such post facto justification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that toll being compensatory in nature, cannot be used to generate revenue of the government. It is only a sum of money taken in respect of a benefit arising out of the temporary use of land. However, in the present case, from the reasons given by the respondents, it is clear that the said toll plaza is being constructed only in order to increase the revenue of the respondents. It is only a sum of money taken in respect of a benefit arising out of the temporary use of land. However, in the present case, from the reasons given by the respondents, it is clear that the said toll plaza is being constructed only in order to increase the revenue of the respondents. Leakages in toll collection can never be a ground to construct another toll plaza within sixty kilometers. It is also submitted that letter dated 02.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 1 – Union of India through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi to various authorities dealing with development and maintenance of National Highways including the respondent no. 2 – National Highways Authority of India, through its Chairman, Government of India, New Delhi specifically provides certain guidelines to be followed for establishment of user fee plazas in all the projects under implementation as well as those at planning stage wherein guideline no. 3 mentions that all the executing agencies shall ensure that, for the projects currently under execution, establishment of user fee plazas must be in conformity of the Rules, 2008 and the amendments thereto as may be carried out from time to time. However, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 have breached the directives of the respondent no. 1. Notification dated 28.08.2020 issued by the respondent no. 1 was never brought to the notice of the petitioner and in any event if the said notification is found in violation of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008, the same has no force of law. It is also submitted that Section 3C of the Act, 1956 entitles a person to object to the use of land for the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3A, however, acquisition for the purpose of construction of a toll plaza has not been referred therein and, therefore, it would have been a futile exercise for the petitioner to object the notification dated 28.08.2020. The construction of toll plaza is governed by the Rules, 2008 and only under the said Rules, construction of toll plaza can be objected. The notice of the said acquisition was given sometimes in October, 2020 and during the said period, the entire country was adversely affected due to Covid-19 pandemic and, hence it was impossible for the petitioner to make inquiries about the notice of acquisition of her land. The notice of the said acquisition was given sometimes in October, 2020 and during the said period, the entire country was adversely affected due to Covid-19 pandemic and, hence it was impossible for the petitioner to make inquiries about the notice of acquisition of her land. The petitioner has also come to know that none of the land losers has received any compensation from the respondents. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no functional toll plaza from Ranchi to Kokpara (a stretch of about 190 Kms.) exists and, therefore, there is no reason to insist for establishing a toll plaza at Putru when it could have been built at any location within this stretch in compliance of the Rules, 2008. It is further submitted that the compliance of a statutory rule is imperative irrespective of any resistance of people against the acquisition process or otherwise as there cannot be a waiver of statute. 5. It is further contended that the respondents have averred in their counter affidavit that toll plaza existing at “Kokpara” is situated at “Mahulia-Baharagora section” whereas the toll plaza being constructed at Putru is situated at “Ranchi-Jamshedpur-Mahulia section.” According to them, the toll plaza existing on “Mahulia-Baharagora section” would be of no relevance for the purpose of computing the distance within the meaning of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008. The aforesaid stand of the respondents thus suggests that if there are different sections of the same length on National Highway, it may not be necessary to comply rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 and if the said stand is accepted, it would mean that if two stretches of national highways i.e. from 1 Km to 100 Km and from 101 Km to 200 Km are being developed by two different concessionaires, then a toll plaza could be located at 99 Kms. as well as 101 Kms. and then again at 161 Kms. This can never be the purpose of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008. The word “section” would rather mean a continuous stretch of road. The respondents are trying to take advantage of the word “same section” in rule 8(2). as well as 101 Kms. and then again at 161 Kms. This can never be the purpose of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008. The word “section” would rather mean a continuous stretch of road. The respondents are trying to take advantage of the word “same section” in rule 8(2). However, if the plain meaning of the language of a statute leads to certain anomalies, the constitutional court may look into the purpose for which the statute has been brought and may acknowledge a meaning which would be in conformity with the purpose of the statute. 6. It is further contended that only justification given by the respondents for establishing a toll plaza at “Putru” within 60 Kms. of the next toll plaza at “Kokpara” is that the location of toll plaza was finalized in the contract agreement concluded at the headquarters of NHAI with approval of the competent authority. However, such justification is fallacious since any agreement which deviates from the provision of law would be void in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Any contract agreement which itself is in violation of the rules cannot be said to have any force of law. 7. It is also submitted that when the villagers initially agitated against the acquisition process, the Circle Officer, Ghatshila vide letter no. 670 dated 22.09.2020 requested the Block Development Officer, Ghatshila to organize a Gram Sabha for taking approval with regard to said acquisition whereupon meeting of the Gram Sabha was convened on 05.10.2020 and the acquisition of the land was objected by the villagers. The minutes of the Gram Sabha meeting was conveyed by the Block Development Officer, Ghatshila to the Circle Officer, Ghatshila on 07.10.2020. 8. Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5, submits that the construction of toll plaza on the land in question is as per the contract agreement entered between the contractor and the executing authority i.e. NHAI in conformity with the Rules, 2008. It is further submitted that a notification to that effect was published in the Official Gazette on 28.08.2020 as also in two newspapers namely, “Pioneer” and “Dainik Jagran” on 05.09.2020 which also contained brief description of the land. It is further submitted that a notification to that effect was published in the Official Gazette on 28.08.2020 as also in two newspapers namely, “Pioneer” and “Dainik Jagran” on 05.09.2020 which also contained brief description of the land. Moreover, the petitioner slept over her right as provided under Section 3-C of the Act, 1956 as she could have objected to the use of land for the purposes mentioned in Gazette Notification issued by the respondent no. 1 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3A, within 21 days from the date of publication. It is also submitted that after vesting of the land in question in the Central Government under Section 3D of Act, 1956, the compensation amount of Rs. 6,98,09,616.00 was deposited with the Competent Authority under Section 3H (1) of the Act, 1956 for Village-Putru and the notices were issued individually to the land owners for receiving compensation. Though the petitioner has denied to have received the notice, yet a general notice was also issued on 25.04.2021 publishing the same in e-newspaper version of local newspaper “Hindustan.” It is further submitted that the structures like Bridges, Vehicle Under Passes, Railway Over Bridges, Railway Under Bridges, Toll Plazas etc. are the part of construction of highways and no separate gazette notifications are separately issued for these works. The land of the petitioner has been acquired for construction of Toll plaza at Mouza-Putru in 274.500 Kms. which is as per the contract agreement concluded at the NHAI Head Quarters as it was needed to plug the leakage of toll collection occurring at Galudih (Km 277.568), Ghatshila (Km 287.00) and Dhalbhumgarh (Km 300.820). 9. It is further contended that the first proviso to rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 clearly speaks that where the executing authority i.e. NHAI Head Quarter deems necessary, it may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow concessionaire to establish another toll plaza within a distance of 60 Kms. In the present case, the NHAI HQ, which is the Competent Authority, has consciously included the location of Mouza-Putru at KM 274.500 in the contract document since the same has been considered absolutely necessary there. In the present case, the NHAI HQ, which is the Competent Authority, has consciously included the location of Mouza-Putru at KM 274.500 in the contract document since the same has been considered absolutely necessary there. The contract agreement has been entered between NHAI and the contractor/ concessionaire and as per the aforesaid first proviso to rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008, the executing authority has the power to authorize the concessionaire to establish a toll plaza within 60 Kms. distance from another toll plaza. The distance between two toll plazas laid down as “should not be less than 60 KM” is not sacrosanct, since there has been numerous precedence's when this distance has been reduced by the NHAI with approval of the Competent Authority on account of site conditions, commercial viability, land availability etc. It is also submitted that the toll rates are accordingly adjusted and levied on the road users based on the actual length of the interconnecting road, since these are directly proportional to the length of the road under influence of the toll. Hence, the petitioner's understanding of levy of fee for a fixed distance of sixty kilometers even though the distance between the toll plazas is reduced, appears to be misconstrued and devoid of rationale. 10. It is also contended 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 as well as widening and development of the existing highways, which are essential for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the said field. 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 the experts of different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. It is also submitted that 66 beneficiaries have no objection to the acquisition and some of them have also received the compensation. 11. It is further submitted that the toll plaza at Putru is being constructed on “Ranchi-Jamshedpur-Mahulia section” from Kms. 233.350 to Kms. 277.500 of NH-33 which was awarded to M/s Iron Triangle Ltd. whereas toll plaza at Kokpara (Kms. 11. It is further submitted that the toll plaza at Putru is being constructed on “Ranchi-Jamshedpur-Mahulia section” from Kms. 233.350 to Kms. 277.500 of NH-33 which was awarded to M/s Iron Triangle Ltd. whereas toll plaza at Kokpara (Kms. 309.625) is being constructed on “Mahulia-Baharagora section” which has been awarded to M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited. The petitioner has erred in connecting two sections of National Highway-33 and treating them as one. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the acquisition of the said land by the respondents particularly for establishing a toll plaza. 13. The thrust of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the said acquisition is in contravention of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 which provides that the minimum distance between two toll plazas of the same section would not be less than sixty Kms. and admittedly in the present case, the distance between the proposed toll plaza at “Putru” and the toll plaza at “Kokpara” is less than 60 Kms. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no reason in writing was recorded before taking decision to establish toll plaza at “Putru” and post facto supply of reason does not validate the impugned action of the respondents. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent-NHAI has tried to justify the impugned decision mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the proviso to rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 empowers the executing authority to construct a toll plaza within sixty kilometers for any sufficient reason and the toll plaza at “Putru” is being constructed to plug the leakages of toll collection occurring at Galudih, Ghatshila and Dhalbhumgarh. Secondly, that rule 8(2) will not be applicable in the present case as the toll plazas at “Putru” and “Kokpara” are situated under different sections. 15. To appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer rule 8 of the Rules, 2008, which reads as under: 8. Secondly, that rule 8(2) will not be applicable in the present case as the toll plazas at “Putru” and “Kokpara” are situated under different sections. 15. To appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer rule 8 of the Rules, 2008, which reads as under: 8. Location of toll plaza: (1) The executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, shall establish a toll plaza beyond a distance of ten kilometres from a municipal or local town area limits: Provided that the executing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, locate or allow the concessionaire to locate a toll plaza within a distance of ten kilometres of such municipal or local town area limits, but in no case within five kilometres of such municipal or local town area limits: Provided further that where a section of the national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, is constructed within the municipal or town area limits or within five kilometres from such limits, primarily for use of the residents of such municipal or town area, the toll plaza may be established within the municipal or town area limits or within a distance of five kilometres from such limits. (2) Any other toll plaza on the same section of national highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of sixty kilometres: Provided that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another toll plaza within a distance of sixty kilometres: Provided further that a toll plaza may be established within a distance of sixty kilometres from another toll plaza if such toll plaza is for collection of fee for a permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel. 16. Thus, though rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 provides that the distance between two toll plaza on the same section and in the same direction of national highway shall not be less than sixty kilometers, the proviso empowers the executing authority to establish another toll plaza within a distance of sixty kilometers for reasons to be recorded in writing, if it is deemed necessary. 17. 17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case so as to first look into the process undertaken by the respondent-NHAI while making acquisition of the said land of the petitioner. The District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO), East Singhbhum was declared as the Competent Authority under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956 vide S.O. No. 1208(E) dated 25.07.2007 issued by the Central Government for acquisition of land in the district of East Singhgbhum and to hand over the same to NHAI for widening of NH-33 into 4/6 lane. Section 3A(1) notification was published vide. S.O. 2932(E) dated 28.08.2020 in the official Gazette of the same date and the substance thereof was published in two newspapers i.e. Pioneer and “Dainik Jagran” on 05.09.2020. The petitioner did not make objection to the proposed acquisition invited under Section 3C of the Act, 1956. The District Land Acquisition Officer, East Singhbhum-cum-Competent Authority after dealing with the objections filed before it, sent report to the Central Government and thereafter Gazette Notification for declaration of acquisition under section 3D of the Act, 1956 was published vide S.O. No. 3801(E) dated 23.10.2020 and the land measuring about 21.48 acres including the petitioner's land vested in the Central Government. The compensation for the said land was also deposited before the D.L.A.O. East Singhbhum-cum-Competent Authority under the Act, 1956 for disbursing it to the concerned awardees. 18. It would thus transpire from the aforesaid fact that due process of law was followed by the competent authority for acquiring the said land as also sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the affected persons. The petitioner admittedly did not raise any objection under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 after issuance of notification. Only after vesting of the land in the Central Government under Section 3D of the Act, 1956, the petitioner filed her objection to the said acquisition which was duly replied by the NHAI vide letter dated 23.03.2021 assigning reason for construction of toll plaza on the land of the petitioner at “Mouza-Putru.” It was specifically replied by the respondents that the proposed toll plaza at Putru was sited to plug the leakages of toll collection occurring at Galudih, Ghatshila and Dhalbhumgarh. 19. In the case of Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 28. 19. In the case of Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 28. 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 the 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 keeping 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 and 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 nullify the acquisition of land and, in the 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 has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. 20. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the courts are not well equipped to effectively decide the viability and feasibility of a particular project, more so the same involving construction of new highways, widening and development of the existing highways are entrusted to experts in the field of highways who are having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. The court can nullify the acquisition of land in rarest of rare cases. 21. I am of the view that at this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge the notification on the ground that the reason for establishing toll plaza at “Mouza-Putru” within sixty Kms. of another toll plaza at “Kokpara” was not mentioned in it. 22. The court can nullify the acquisition of land in rarest of rare cases. 21. I am of the view that at this stage, the petitioner cannot challenge the notification on the ground that the reason for establishing toll plaza at “Mouza-Putru” within sixty Kms. of another toll plaza at “Kokpara” was not mentioned in it. 22. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the objection of petitioner would not have served any purpose since acquisition for construction of a toll plaza has not been referred in the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act, 1956 which otherwise is governed by the Rules, 2008, has no substance. The land of the petitioner has been acquired under the Act, 1956 and the structures like Bridges, Vehicle Under Passes, Railway Over Bridges, Railway Under Bridges, Toll Plazas are integral part of construction of highways. Moreover, Rules, 2008 has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1956 for collection of fee for use of sections of national highways, permanent bridges, bypasses and tunnels etc. and the said Rules do not provide separate procedure for acquisition of land to establish toll plaza and as such, the petitioner was required to lodge her objection under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 after issuance of notification. 23. So far the claim of the respondents that the proposed toll plaza at “Putru” and “Kokpara” are under different section, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the word “same section” mentioned in Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 means a continuous stretch of road and if the interpretation suggested by the respondents is accepted, the same will lead to anomalies and absurdity. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on paragraphs 9 and 16 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal and Sons vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and Others, (1986) 2 SCC 237 , which are quoted herein-below: 9. So we see that the primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment. So we see that the primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word if necessary. 16. Our own court has generally taken the view that ascertainment of legislative intent is a basic rule of statutory construction and that a rule of construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and that though a construction, according to plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a construction should not be adopted where it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities, vide K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173 , State Bank of Travancore vs. Mohd. M. Khan, (1981) 4 SCC 82 , Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449 , Ravula Subba Rao vs. CIT, AIR 1956 SC 604 , Govindlal vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (1975) 2 SCC 482 and Babaji Kondaji vs. Nasik Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 50 . 25. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also put reliance on the judgment of learned single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench rendered in the case of Sp. S. Ilangoo vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (MD) No. 20922 of 2017 with W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 17226, 17227 and 17469 of 2017. I have perused the said judgment in which the issue was as to whether the respondent-NHAI could have established a toll plaza at “Shenbagampettai” at NH-36 when it already had a toll plaza in “Lembalakudi” as there was distance of only 23 Kms. between these two places. 17226, 17227 and 17469 of 2017. I have perused the said judgment in which the issue was as to whether the respondent-NHAI could have established a toll plaza at “Shenbagampettai” at NH-36 when it already had a toll plaza in “Lembalakudi” as there was distance of only 23 Kms. between these two places. The court held that both the said toll plazas were on the same section and on the same NH-36 and no reason was assigned at the time of issuing notification for establishing toll plaza at “Shenbagampettai.” As such, the court directed the respondents to come out with a revised notification by giving reasons in writing under first proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 for retaining both the toll plazas and to accordingly revise the toll fee. 26. In the said case, it was not the stand of the respondents that “Lembalakudi” toll plaza and “Shenbagampettai” toll plaza were under different sections of New NH-36, rather the claim of the respondents was that the stretch of about 23 Kms. between “Pudukkottai” and “Thirumayam” is overlapping between Old NH-210 and Old NH-226 and, therefore, it was taken into account only as part and parcel of Old NH-210/New NH-536 and not as part and parcel of Old NH-226/New NH-36. However, the said defence of the respondents was not accepted by the court since the Schedule of Notification vide S.O. 542(E) dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Central Government revealed that the stretch between “Pudukkottai” and “Thirumayam” section had become part and parcel of New NH-36 i.e. Old NH-226. It was held that once the stretch between “Pudukkottai” and “Thirumayam” had become part and parcel of Old NH-226/New NH-36, the NHAI could not have any justification to make out a case that the toll plaza at “Lembalakudi” originally installed in a stretch of Old NH-210 could continue to be considered the toll plaza for taking care of Old NH-210/New NH-536 alone, as that kind of stand would run contrary to rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 as well as the aforesaid Schedule S.O. 542(E) dated 05.03.2010. 27. The facts and circumstance of the present case is different from the said case cited on behalf of the petitioner. 27. The facts and circumstance of the present case is different from the said case cited on behalf of the petitioner. In the present case, the specific case of the respondent-NHAI is that toll plaza at “Kokpara” is under different section and as such, the provision of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 would not be applicable while establishing toll plaza at “Putru.” Moreover, in the aforesaid case also, the court did not direct the respondent-NHAI to remove the toll plaza at “Shenbagampettai” the respondent was rather directed to revise the toll fee. 28. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Chetna Society (Regd.) and Another vs. Chief General Manager Technical and Others, 2015 SC Online All 6270, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: 9. We shall next deal with the challenge on the ground that under Rule 8(2), the distance between two toll plazas should not be less than sixty kilometers on the same section of a national highway and in the same direction. The crucial words of Rule 8(2) are “any other toll plaza on the same section of national highway and in the same direction.” In other words, where one section of the national highway is being developed under a concession agreement, the distance of another toll plaza on that section should not be within sixty kilometers. Evidently, this requirement of Rule 8(2) is not breached in the present case. The error on the part of the petitioners lies in connecting two separate sections of the national highway and treating them as if they are one. Two separate concession agreements have been entered into by NHAI, one for the Moradabad-Bareilly section from kilometer 148.000 to 262.000 which was awarded on 19 February 2010. The second and distinct section is for the stretch from Bareilly to Sitapur falling from kilometer 262.000 to 413.200 of NH 24 for which a concession agreement was executed on 22 June 2010. There are two separate concession agreements for the development of two separate sections of NH 24. Hence, the requirement of Rule 8(2) is not breached. The second and distinct section is for the stretch from Bareilly to Sitapur falling from kilometer 262.000 to 413.200 of NH 24 for which a concession agreement was executed on 22 June 2010. There are two separate concession agreements for the development of two separate sections of NH 24. Hence, the requirement of Rule 8(2) is not breached. The toll plaza which is being established at kilometer 267.000 is on the Bareilly-Sitapur section and hence, for the purpose of computing the distance within the meaning of Rule 8(2), the toll plaza on the Moradabad-Bareilly section would be of no relevance. The provisions of Rule 8(2) have, therefore, not been breached. 29. In the aforesaid case, learned Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed that “Moradabad-Bareilly section” and “Bareilly-Sitapur section” are two different sections and two separate concession agreement were executed for development of the said two sections of NH-24 and as such, the provision of rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008 has not been breached. 30. In the present case also, toll plaza at “Kokpara” is at section “Mahulia-Baharagora” whereas toll plaza at “Putru” is at “Ranchi-Jamshedpur-Mahulia section” and two separate concession agreements have been executed for development of both the sections. Thus, I find that the fact of the present case is similar to the aforesaid case cited on behalf of the respondent-NHAI. 31. Moreover, the land of the petitioner was acquired under the Act, 1956 for widening of NH-33 and it is for the experts of the National Highways to decide as to where the toll plazas or bridges etc. are to be constructed. Certain irregularity in acquisition proceeding, if any, cannot undo the act of acquisition which has already been done after following due procedure of law. 32. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.