HARISH CHANDRA PANDE Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who are eight in number have raised their grievances as against the impugned order of 12/11/2020 which has been passed by respondent no.6 (Annexure 2) to the writ petition by virtue of which the claim for grant of compensation for the acquisition of their land, without resorting to the proceedings under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, had been taken over by the respondents for the purposes of construction of the road called as -Bhiun Guler Motor Road-. The State by virtue of a Notification of 7/6/2005 and by an amended notification of 1/8/2012 and 4/2/2016, had laid down the project for the purposes of construction of the aforesaid road under the Project.

(2.) The petitioners- contention is that they are the recorded owners of the land lying in Khet No.906, 909, 912, 922, 923, 924 and 908, having a total area of 0.03 hectare which is located in village Hichaudi, Tehsil-Kapkot, District Bageshwar, of which they have the recorded as the owners, as would be apparent from the khatauni appended by them with the writ petition as Annexure 4. The same has been taken by the respondents for the construction of the said road under the project without resorting to the process under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) Few facts which are admitted, that the respondents had issued a Notification No.468/111-2/05/10 dtd. 7/6/2005; as well as the revised Notification No.3251/11(2)/12-10/Pra.Aa.2005 dtd. 1/8/2012, for the purposes of construction of the road as referred aforesaid. The grievance of the petitioners is that though after the amendment being made, under the Constitution the right to property, has been taken away, as to be outside the ambit of fundamental right envisaged by Part III of the Constitution, but still their rights over the land are being protected by the implications of the provisions contained under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; because if at all the land of the petitioner was all required to be taken for the construction of the aforesaid project of road, it ought to have been only after resorting to the process of law of acquisition, which has not been admitted resorted to by the respondents and hence there is an apparent violation of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act as well Article 14 to be read with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The fact that the process of acquisition was not resorted to is a fact, which stands admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bageshwar, in view of the pleadings, which has been raised by him in para 5 of the counter affidavit which is based upon the records. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, under the affidavit of Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, is extracted hereunder:-