KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are owner of plots No. 62, 144 and 145 of village Balpur Patti, Pargana Jahanabad, Tehsil and District Pilibhit. A notification dated 21.8.2012 was issued by the Central Government under Section 3 -A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was for acquisition of the plots of the petitioners, as well as a large number of other plots. The said notification was published in the newspapers on 12.9.2012. Several land owners whose land was involved in the said notification, filed their objections alongwith the one dated 18.10.2012 filed by the petitioners, the hearing of which is said to have taken place on 29.1.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.2.2013, the objections were decided against the petitioners.. Subsequently, the notification under Section 3 -D of the Act was issued on 17.4.2013, which was published on 28.5.2013. The compensation has also been awarded vide order dated 30.9.2013 and a notice has been issued by the competent authority on 7.12.2013 asking the land owners to collect the amount of compensation, which had been deposited in the Bareilly Treasury. Challenging the said notifications dated 21.8.2012 and 17.4.2013 issued under Sections 3 -A and 3 -D of the Act respectively, this writ petition has been filed. The orders dated 26.2.2013 and 30.9.2013 whereby the objections of the petitioners have been decided and the determination of the compensation has been made, have also been challenged. A further prayer has also been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the plots in question.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 -National Highway Authority of India (N.H.A.I.) and have perused the record. Though notice has been served on learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but he has neither put in appearance nor has any counter -affidavit been filed. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(3.) SRI Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3 -N.H.A.I. has firstly submitted that the petitioners have not approached the Court within a reasonable time for the disposal of their objections, as the objections were decided on 26.2.2013 whereas the writ petition has been filed in February, 2014. The notifications, which have been challenged in this petition, were also issued nearly ten months before the filing of this writ petition. It has thus been contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. He has further submitted that the notification under Section 3 -A of the Act is neither vague nor has been issued mechanically, as it gives the specific plots of land to be acquired and the purpose for acquiring the same. As regards the disposal of the objections of the petitioners, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra has submitted that the purpose of acquisition was clearly stated in the notifications, which was for widening the National Highway and as per the technical report of the Authority, the question of there being alternate site or plan being available (as suggested by the petitioners) because of which plots of the petitioners should not have been acquired, was neither feasible nor relevant.