H GOPALAKRISHNA SHETTY Vs. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 24/1A2 renumbered as Sy. Nos. 24/1A2P1 measuring 64 cents, 24/1A2P2, measuring 72 cents and 24/1A2P3, measuring 86 cents. The said lands are being acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 17 from 283/300 to 348/500 Kundapur to Suratkal Section to an extent of 60 mtrs. The preliminary notification was issued on 14-9-2009 as per Annexure-J and the final notification is issued on 2-7-2010 as per Annexure-K in respect of the acquisition of the aforementioned lands. The acquisition notifications are called in question in these writ petitions on the ground that the respondents have acquired the properties of the petitioners to an extent of more than 30 mtrs. on one side of the road from the centre of National Highway No. 17 at Pandeshwara Village, Udupi Taluk and District. The petitioners have also sought for quashing the order at Annexures-G and H, both dated 7-1-2010 passed by the second respondent by which the statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the preliminary notification came to be dismissed. Sri Shekar Shetty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands in question are not dry lands, but are garden lands; that the lands are having coconut plantation since 30 years and the entire family members of the petitioners are dependent on the lands in question; certain lands such as Sy. Nos. 20/2B and 20/3B which are adjoining the petitioners' properties are deleted presumably on the ground that such lands consist of petrol bunk, etc. ; there is availability of vast area of Government lands, which could have been made use of by the respondents for the purpose in question; the petitioners are not heard in the matter personally as required under the provisions of Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and consequently, the rejection of statement of objections filed by the petitioners is unlawful. He further relies upon Annexure-R1 produced by the respondents along with the statement of objections to contend that the State Government has taken a decision to acquire the properties to an extent of 30 mtrs from the central point of the road for the purpose of widening of National Highway in India; since the lands sought to be acquired are beyond 30 mtrs. from the centre of the road to another edge of the road, the acquisition of the lands beyond 30 mtrs. , is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The writ petitions are opposed by the learned Counsel for respondent 2 by the filing statement of objections. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2 contends that the petitioners were not only given opportunity, but also notified and heard personally as required under Section 3C of the Act; that the letter at Annexure-R1 does not in any way specify the maximum limit of 30 mtrs. for the purpose of widening the highway, but it is a minimum requirement. In the normal course, respondent 2 would not acquired beyond 30 mtrs. from the centre of the road for widening of the National Highway, but in the matter on hand, respondent 2 wants to set up Toll Plaza and two weigh bridges, etc. , in the interest of the public and for safe transit of the vehicles. On these among other grounds, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.

(3.) The records reveal that for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 66 (formerly known as National Highway No. 17) from 283/300 to 348/500 (Kundapur-Suratkal Section), the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act issued preliminary notification dated 14-9-1999. Thereafter wide publicity is given by publishing in Times of India' and 'Vijaya Karnataka' daily newspapers. The petitioners filed statement of objections to the preliminary notification. The petitioners have contended that their family is entirely depending on the properties in question and the properties are garden lands; that the respondents are entitled to acquire only to an extent of 30 mtrs. from the middle of the road and not beyond that. They have also stated in the statement of objections that adequate compensation needs to be granted in their favour.