JOHN BRITTO AMBROSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common and inter-related issues arise in these cases, these matters are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that though the notification for acquisition of the land in terms of Section 3A of the National Highways act, 1956 has been issued for acquiring the specified extent of property and measurements, further steps are actually being taken by the respondent authorities concerned in respect of extent property owned by the petitioners which is larger than the one shown in the Section 3A notifications. The petitioners would seriously urge that no acquisition of land in excess of the property specified in the Section 3A notification could be carried out by the respondent authorities concerned in terms of the specific provisions contained in Section 3 of the National Highway Act, 1956. Further the common case of the petitioners is that as far as the compensatory benefits are concerned, the benefits as provided in the schedules to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are to be effectuated in the case of these acquisitions as well, even though the acquisition has been carried out as per the National Highways Act, 1956. This contention of the petitioners is raised on the basis of the provisions contained in the Ordinance promulgated in 2015 amending the provisions of the above said 2013 Act.

(3.) The prayers in W.P.(C)No.27955/2018 are as follows: