ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners would assail the notification dated 17.6.2015 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and notification dated 3.7.2015 issued under Section 3D(2) of the Act. In these two notifications, it has been declared that the land bearing part of Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.993 hectares belonging to the petitioners has stood vested absolutely free from any encumbrances in the Central Government.

(2.) The matter pertains to acquisition of land for construction of Balodabazar-Bhatapara, National Highway No.12-A (new NH No.30) including construction of Bypass on the stretch of land from Km.316.075 to Km.317.401 (MP Border Chilpi to Simga Section). A notification dated 25th June, 2014 under Section 3A(1) was published for the subject land bearing Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.099 hectares and again for Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.133 hectares to which the petitioners moved objection under Section 3-C of the Act. Another notification dated 2nd March, 2015 was issued under Section 3A(1) for the land bearing Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.8600 hectares and thereafter notification dated 17.6.2015 under Section 3D was issued for the land bearing Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.993 hectares and thereafter notification under Section 3G for the land bearing Khasra No.1460/1, area 0.993 hectares vide Annexure-P/15.

(3.) It is argued that the second notification under Section 3A issued on 2 nd March, 2015 was only in respect of 0.8600 acre whereas notification under Section 3D was issued for 0.993 hectares, therefore, there is no notification under Section 3A for the area ad measuring 0.133 hectares. It is also argued that in any case the petitioners' objection dated 19.9.2014 (Annexure-P/5) was not decided for the area 0.133 hectares because at that point of time the second notification under Section 3A issued on 2.3.2015 was not in existence. It is further argued that on the spot the area chosen for construction of land is different than the area shown in the alignment for the project. The area which is actually used is located at better place for which the petitioners would be entitled for higher compensation. The petitioners would thus pray for quashing the notifications.