K.P. RAMREDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have impugned the notifications issued by the respondents under the provisions of Sec. 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"). The notification under Sec. 3A of the Act is issued on 22/12/2017 and the notification under Sec. 3D of the Act is issued on 16/3/2018.

(2.) In elaboration of the petition averments, Sri.S.M.Kalwad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are the owners of different lands in Kasaba Village, Haddinagudu Village and Sanganakallu Village of Ballari District and only certain portions of their larger lands are notified for acquisition for the purposes of constructing a National Highway under the impugned notifications. Though the first respondent has issued notification under Sec. 3A of the Act, indicating the names of the Village, Taluk, District, the survey numbers and the area required for the purposes of execution of the project, the first respondent has not mentioned the names of the owners whose lands would be acquired; however, in the subsequent notification issued under Sec. 3D of the Act, the names of the persons whose lands are acquired are mentioned apart from the aforesaid details, but again, without mentioning the extent that would be acquired from each of the land owners. The learned counsel canvasses that these anomalies have resulted in a lack of opportunity that is envisaged under the provisions of Sec. 3C of the Act.

(3.) Sri.S.M.Kalwad further canvasses that if the first respondent had only issued notification under Sec. 3A of the Act specifying the names of the land owners whose lands would be acquired and specifying the respective extents, it would have afforded a reasonable opportunity to them to file objections as contemplated under Sec. 3C of the Act which would have given them a further opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Sec. 3C(2) of the Act with the assistance of a legal practitioner. The notification issued under Sec. 3D of the Act, which is a culmination of the defective notification under Sec. 3A of the Act, also cannot prevail for the same reason.