VIKRAM SINGH KANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is bunch of 24 writ petitions, which involve an identical question of fact and law and, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in the present writ petition claimed themselves to be the permanent residents of village Gid Bhuter, Post Tilwara, Tehsil and District Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand. As per the averments made in the writ petition they have claimed to be the bhumidhars of the respective part and parcel of lands, which has been described in the pleadings of the writ petition. They have contended that for the purposes of laying down/widening of the National Highway No. 109, the National Highway Authority while exercising its powers under Sec. 3-A(1) had issued a notification on 27/1/2017 and a corrigendum notification dtd. 28/7/2017. They have prayed for that a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondents not to acquire the land in question. In relief 3 and absolutely a contradictory relief has been sought to relief 1 and 2 where they have prayed for that they may be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If the petitioners claim a relief of compensation under the Act of 2013, they could not have challenged the notification dtd. 27/1/2017 and 28/7/2017 issued under Sec. 3A(1) of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956. They have also questioned the notice of 14/11/2017 issued by respondent no. 2. In almost all the writ petitions the reliefs as claimed are common.

(3.) Precisely if we go through the grounds, which have been raised by the petitioner for giving challenge to the two notifications pertains to the technical and engineering aspects, which are with regards to the alignment of the road, the width, which has been determined by the National Highway Authority, according to the plan framed under the Act, which stood sanctioned by the central authority, as well as, the fact that the petitioners have been discriminated in the acquisition proceedings, because the acquisition is being carried out from one side of the existing road and the other part has been completely left where no acquisition proceedings have been held no part of land is taken from the other side of the road.