VINAY RUTHIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the SDO dated 22/3/2019 holding that the order u/S.3(C) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1966 was already passed and objections have been decided, therefore, fresh opportunity in this regard is not necessary. The petitioner has also challenged the action of demolition of the property and has sought other reliefs.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his land is situated at village Lasudiya Ramnath, Tehsil Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh Biaora and was included in the Notification issued u/S.3-A(1) of the Act dated 24/11/2011 for widening of Bhopal Bioara Section of the existing National Highway No.12.

(3.) Petitioner along with the other owners had filed objection u/S. 3-C of the Act, but they were mechanically decided without giving opportunity of hearing and thereafter the Notification dated 5/10/2012 was issued u/S.3-D of the Act. Petitioner had filed WP No.694/2013 which was disposed of by order dated 10/7/2013 in terms of the order dated 1/7/2013 passed in similar petition being WP No.2311/2013. According to the petitioner, in WP No.2311/2013 the final order u/S.3-G was not passed whereas in the petitioner's case at the time of dismissal of the petition order u/S.3-G was already passed. Petitioner in this back ground had filed WA No.897/2013 which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 23/10/2013 with liberty to file review against the order passed in the writ petition. RP No.629/2013 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 27/11/2014. The petitioner thereafter approached the competent authority seeking opportunity of hearing, but in the mean while the proceedings for possession were initiated, therefore, the petitioner had filed WP No.684/2015 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 14/9/2016 and this order was affirmed by the division bench by order dated 3/1/2017 passed in WA No.420/2016. The competent authority thereafter has heard the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 23/2/2019. According to the petitioner the property standing on the land in question has been demolished and possession has been taken.