STATE OF U P Vs. OM PRAKASH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This is a writ petition by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The array of parities before the Court is (1) State of U. P. through the Secretary, Public Works Department, (2) National Highway Department, U. P. , Lucknow and (3) Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Mathura, through its Executive Engineer.

(2.) THE facts are simple. THE Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Road Con struction Division, a part of the con stituent of the Public Works Department, Agra, filed a complaint under sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the U. P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 with an assertion that one Om Prakash Tyagi, arrayed as respon dent No. 1 in this writ petition, had encroached upon and built on the track of land with a width of 9. 90 metres from the centre of the road, near Kilometre No. 2 on the Agra-Fatehpur Sikri Highway. THE complaint of the National Highway, Road Construction Division, was unsuited by the Additional City Magistrate, Agra, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 11th December, 1984 (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition ).

(3.) IF the declaration of the highway in question now has an increased width then it does not matter who may wrongly claim and unauthorisedly squat on the highway would be covered under the Act even if it is a department of the Government whether the State or the Central. In the present case, notwithstanding that the land may be under the control of the Central Railway, i. e. , the Union of India, if the effect of the notification of llth December 1953 was that the expanse of the width of the road had increased, such of the corridor which went parallel to this highway, as an nounced by the notification, aforesaid, and had sanction under the Act, aforesaid, of an increased width, this tract came within the eclipse of the notification declaring a controlled area. In this regard, this Court has already held that the Fatehpur Sikri- Agra highway after the issue of the notification of 11th December, 1953, is affected by this notification and that this notification refers to the width and the expanse of this highway and such space and area will be termed as the controlled area under the Act. In the circumstances, the fact that the respondent No. 1 may be a licensee of the Central Railway, is an ir relevant aspect.