KANHAIYALAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No.l, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Padariya, petitioner No.2 a social worker and petitioner No.3, Janpad Adhyaksha, Chawarpatha and a social activist, describing themselves as pro bono publico have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for calling for the entire record relating to grant of compensation in the Rajmarg area, Narsinghpur in respect of persons whose land have been acquired for construction of 4-6 lane of NH-26, issue of appropriate direction to an independent authority or agency of the State Government or the Central Government to investigate into the matter pertaining to grant of compensation, to quash the entire proceeding for compensation from the stage of 'panchnama' itself, command the authorities concerned to prepare panchnama after granting opportunity to the persons whose lands have been acquited and to fix the proper compensation to the land oustees.

(2.) The facts which are exposited are that the petitioners are the persons who are espousing the cases of the persons whose lands have been acquired in village Lolri in respect of certain lands situated in Bandobast No.418, P.C.No.9, Tahsil Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur. The respondent No.l, Ministry of Shipping, Roads and National Highway, is responsible for building, maintenance and upkeep of national highways in the country. It extends the technical and financial support to the State Government for development of State roads and roads of inter-state connectivity and economic importance. It evolves standard specifications for roads and bridges in the country. The respondent No.4, the competent authority under the provisions of National Higher Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the 1956 Act') is dealing with the cases relating to scheme of rehabilitation and uprading of NH-26 from Sagar to Rajmarg Choraha (Barman). As pleaded, in August, 2004 a rehabilitation scheme for rehabilitating and upgrading NH-26 from Sagar to Rajmarg Chowraha (Barman) into 4-6 lane carry ways was floated by the National Highway Authority of India Limited, the respondent No.2 herein. The said scheme has been brought on record as Annexure-P-1. In the said scheme the petitioners who are the residents of Narsinghpur districts are also affected alongwith other 1000 families. Although length of the project road is only 10 Kms. passing through Narsinghpur District yet nearly 1000 families are affected. For the purpose of acquisition a notification dated 18.3.2005 was published in newspaper dated 16.4.2005 under sub-section (1) of section 3-C of the 1956 Act. A general notice dated 26.8.2006 was published in 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 30.8.2006 informing the persons of Tahsil and villages whose names are given in the general notice that they should file claim/objection in respect of determination of compensation within a period of 21 days before the competent authority. In the said publication names of two villages of Tahsil Tendukheda are given and there was no mention of village Lolri. It is averred that notification under Section 3-D(2) vesting the land of village Lolri in the Central Government was published in the Gazette of India dated 14.3.2007 and was published in 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 30.4.2007. An order dated 31.8.2007 has been passed in which compensation in respect of village Lolri, Number Bandobast 418, P.C.No.9, Tahsil Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur has been fixed without complying with the provisions contained in section 3-G of the Act which mandates notification in respect of land for which compensation is being determined. It is asseverated that no notice or for that matter notification in respect of village Lolri, Settlement No.418, Tahsil Tendukheda has been published or notified in the official gazzette or otherwise in the local newspaper as required under Section 3-G of the Act and hence, order dated 31.8.2007 fixing the compensation is vulnerable. Reference has been made to the 'panchnamas' allegedly prepared behind the back of the petitioners and other persons which would demonstrate, as set forth in the petition, that they have been prepared at one go in the office but not at the relevant site. It is averred that the 'Panchanamas' contain signatures of 12 persons who are common in all the 'panchnamas'. None of these are either residents or having any shop or establishment on the place adjacent to the place of which the 'panchnamas' are prepared. The aforesaid action shows arbitrariness exercise of power and clearly shows the illegal manner in which the 'panchnamas' have, been prepared. It is the further case of the, petitioners that the respondents No.3 and 4 have acted in an extremely whimsical manner in fixing the claims of compensation of such persons whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of building of 4-6 lane highway including the lands of the petitioners.

(3.) It is set forth that the lands of nearly about 400 persons have been acquired under the provisions of the 1956 Act it is asserted that there is rampant corruption in the grant of compensation. The respondent No.4 in connivance with the respondent No.3 and the lower staff have granted excess compensation only in those cases in which their illegal demands have been satisfied by the persons concerned. In the cases of petitioners and the like who could not fulfill illegal demands they have been granted compensation at a much lower rate. In some of the cases the compensation is even half than the market value of the land acquired. On the other hand the respondent No.4 has granted compensation for the non-existing houses. By common order dated 31.8.2007 the 4th respondent has decided the cases of compensation of all the persons whose lands are situated in village Lolri. It is alleged that there has been immense illegality in determination of compensation and discrepancies in preparation of 'panchnamas'. Certain instances have been given how the illegality have crept in relation to grant of compensation. It is urged that hotel Surya has been extended compensation for four bores whereas there is only single bore in the hotel. Certain cases of landowners who have been given less compensation though they were ought to have been given on the basis of market prices have been cited. That apart, various assertions have been made in the writ petition which need not be referred to as it only multiplies the number of persons who have been granted compensation at a lower rate.