LAL MANI JAIN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions have been filed praying for the quashing of the national Highways Authority Amendment Act 16 of 1997 on the ground that it is ultra vires the Constitution of India; for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Notification dated 13. 11. 2007 issued under Section 3-A of National Highways Authority Act, 1956 ('nha Act' for short); for the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Notification dated 31. 10. 2008 issued under Section 3-D, and Notification dated 3. 11. 2008 issued under Section 3-G; and for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of land comprised in Khasra no. 37/5/1/1 (2 bighas 5 biswas) and Khasra No. 37/5/1/2 (3 biswas) situated on Delhi-Mathura Road in village Badarpur.

(2.) THE Petitions were heard along with Writ Petition Nos. 790-92/2009 where similar grounds had been raised and similar prayers had been made. Writ Petition Nos,791-92/2009 were dismissed as withdrawn on 21. 7. 2009 after arguments were heard for some days. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned senior Counsel appearing for those Petitioners, had clarified that if a decision favourable to those Petitioners was eventually given on the question of solatium, the Petitioners would avail of all the benefits; and that a claim for alternate plots would not be prejudiced by the withdrawal. All the grounds that have been raised before us in these Petitions had also been raised in those Petitions and had been given-up. We reiterate that all the petitions were listed together.

(3.) MR. Nalin Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, has not raised any argument on the contention that Section 3c (2) of the NHA Act is unconstitutional or arbitrary. Challenge to the vires of Section 3c (2) of the nha Act has, therefore, been abandoned. Instead, he has contended that the assailed Notification under Section 3a of the NHA Act has not been published in accordance with statutory stipulations. We find that apart from the publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette, publication was also carried out in Dainik Jagran and The Statesman. Section 3a (3) of the nha Act mandates that the Notification should be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language. The former is in hindi and the latte in English; both have circulation in the subject locality. We hold that the requirements under Section 3a of the NHA Act have been complied with.