KIMAT RAI AND SONS (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA SH KIMAT RAI SIKRI Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of above titled two writ petitions together as common questions of facts and law are involved in the same. For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from CWP No.8514 of 2017 titled Kimat Rai and Sons vs. National Highways Authority of India and another.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged notification dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1) issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and notification/declaration dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) issued under as well as subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said notifications. In CWP No.16853 of 2017, besides challenging the aforesaid two notifications, petitioner, Veena Rani has also challenged award dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure-P/7 in that writ petition). Petitioner (in CWP No.8514 of 2017) is owner of a plot measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas (2054 square yards) comprised in Khasra/Survey No.3//23/1(Min), situated in village Jhamat, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (West). Respondent-National Highways Authority of India (for short, 'NHAI') issued notification dated 18.09.2015 under Section 3A of the Act for widening/four laning and operation of Laddowal Bypass, Ludhiana and in that process acquired land vide notification Annexure P/1. Objections, as provided under Section 3C of the Act, were also invited within a period of 21 days from the publication of the said notification. The petitioner filed detailed objections (Annexure-P/2) to the notification on 14.10.2015. Since the petitioner failed to receive any response with regard to the aforesaid objections, he submitted representation on 30.12.2015 (Annexure-P/3). However, respondent- NHAI issued a declaration dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) under Section 3D of the Act without affording any opportunity of hearing, much less granting personal hearing to the petitioner with regard to the objections and even conveying the decision taken thereon. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order disallowing his objections and thereafter filed detailed representation on 18.06.2016 (Annexure P/6). He also submitted supplementary objections on 25.06.2016. The respondent- NHAI issued a notice on 23.03.2016 in the newspaper as required under Section 3G(3) of the Act asking all the persons interested in the land acquired vide declaration Annexure P/4 to prefer their claims. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his objections have been disallowed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and declaration Annexure P/4 has been issued. As mentioned above, in the second writ petition i.e. CWP no.16853 of 2017 filed on 29.07.2017, petitioner-Veena Rani has challenged the award dated 26.04.2017 as well.

(3.) Respondent-Nhai filed detailed reply taking preliminary objections that the writ petition is not maintainable, rather the same is misuse of the process of law as the petitioner has sought quashing of notification dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1), notification dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure-P/4) and the award dated 26.04.2017 (Annexure P/7). The land of the petitioners had been acquired for Laddowal Bypass linking NH-095 with NH-1 via Laddowal seed farm at Ludhiana. The notification under Section 3A of the Act was published in the Gazette of India on 18.09.2015. The substance of the notification was also published in three daily newspapers widely circulated in the locality, namely, "Jagbani" (Punjabi) and "The Tribune" (English) on 12.10.2015, and in "Punjab Kesari" (Hindi) on 13.10.2015 for the information of the public. Certain objections were received from the land owners and the same were decided by the competent authority on 09.05.2016. After considering the objections, the Government of India had published a notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act on 12.05.2016. The substance of the said notification was also published in three newspapers on 06.06.2016. As respondent No.2 had decided the objections under Section 3C of the Act, the competent authority pronounced the award on 26.04.2017 in accordance with law. Otherwise, objections dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure-P/2) filed by the petitioner shows that the acquisition was challenged mainly on two grounds (i) road alignment; and (ii) compensation. As regards to road alignment, it has been stated that the same has been designed on the basis of preparation of DPR through bidding system by empanelled consultant of the MoRT&H. M/s Gifford India Private Limited was appointed as consultant for preparation of DPR for four-laning of (Partial Access Control) of Laddowal Bypass linking NH-95 with NH-1 via Laddowal Seed Farm Km. 0.000 to Km. 17.041 under NHDP-VII in the State of Punjab. A detailed study of traffic pattern and highway geometrics of the project highway was carried out for preparation of the report which had further undergone a detailed scrutiny at the level of Project Implementation Unit, Regional Office, NHAI, NHAI HQ and then MoRT&H. The road alignment was envisaged and designed keeping in view the geometries of the road, road safety during construction and after construction etc., and as such the change of alignment for the benefit of an individual cannot be considered. The entire procedure for acquisition of the land in question had been followed under the Act. The planned alignment is, therefore, designed as per required highway geometrics and hence, any modifications to the same shall be contrary to the public interest. So far as compensation is concerned, since the award has already been pronounced by the competent authority on 26.04.2017, the petitioner has got alternative remedy before the Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the Act and as such, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.