H J SIWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have questioned the endorsement vide Annexure-C, dated 30-3-2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, by which the objections filed by the petitioners for the notification issued under Section 3-C(l) of Karnataka Highways Act, 1956, are not considered. Consequently, the petitioners have questioned the final notification acquiring the property of the petitioners bearing Sy. No. 58/1A, situated at Avalahalli Village, Bangalore to an extent of 2393 sq. mtrs. for widening up National Highway No. 4 in Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore section. The petitioners have also sought for declaration that sub-section (4) of Section 3-D of National Highways Act is ultra vires, inasmuch as it affects Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India. The land bearing Sy. No. 58/1A situated at Avalahalli village is owned by the petitioners and others. The preliminary notification is issued on 14-12-2006 by the respondents declaring their intention to acquire the lands in question along with the adjoining lands in Mulbagal-Kolar-Bangalore section for widening of National Highway No. 4. Preliminary notification reveals that an area of 5019 sq. mtrs. is sought to be acquired in Sy. No. 58/1A. Preliminary notification was published in English newspaper "Times of India" and in Kannada newspaper "Samyuktha Karnataka" on 1-2-2007. The petitioners filed statement of objections on 3-2-2007. The said statement of objections is received by the office of the respondents on 3-3-2007. Since the statement of objections is filed beyond 21 days after the publication of the preliminary notification, an endorsement is issued by the respondents as per Annexure-C, dated 30-3-2007 intimating the petitioners that the statement of objections filed belatedly cannot be considered. Thereafter the respondents have proceeded to issue the final notification on 14-11-2007.

(2.) Sri. Abhinav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not in India during the relevant period and they came to India only on 14-2-2007 and thereafter they have filed the objections within 21 days from the date of their arrival to India. He further submits that the respondents should have considered the statement of objections in all fairness with a view to consider the case of the petitioners. He further submits that sub-section (4) of Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is unconstitutional, inasmuch as the provision cannot prohibit the High Courts and the Supreme Court from hearing the writ petitions questioning the final notifications. Per contra, it is contended by Smt. Shilpa Shah, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the second respondent that the concerned authority is justified in rejecting the statement of objections filed by the petitioners since the same is filed beyond 21 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notification; that the work is under progress with all seriousness and therefore the effort of the petitioners to delay the proceedings may not be entertained.

(3.) There cannot be any doubt that under certain special circumstances, objections of the aggrieved land owners or interested persons, may be considered in accordance with law even if they are filed beyond 21 days. But such reasons should be acceptable. In this matter, the petitioners rely upon the document at Annexure-D, dated 22-2-2007 to contend that they were not in India and they travelled from foreign country to India on that day. The said document at Annexure-D does not disclose that the petitioners have travelled from a foreign country. It merely reveals that one of the petitioners had travelled from Bombay to Bangalore on 22-2- 2007. Thus, there is nothing on record to show as to what prevented the petitioners from filing the objections within the stipulated period of 21 days. It is also the case of the petitioners that newspapers "Times of India" and "Samyukta Karnataka" do not have adequate circulation in the area in question. On the other hand, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid two newspapers have wide circulation in the area concerned. Since the work is stated to be under progress with all seriousness and petitioners are the only persons who have objected for widening of the road, this Court declines to give one more opportunity of being heard to them. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the writ petition on merits.