LAWS(PAT)-2010-2-21

MANOJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 26, 2010
MANOJ KUMAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners of these two writ applications belong to the group of the villagers of Belaganj Block of Gaya district who have admittedly got affected on account of Notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, declaring its intention to acquire the plots of land mentioned in the schedule of the Notification for building (widening/four-laning, etc.) maintenance, management and operation on the stretch of land from km. 71.000 to km. 125 (Patna-Gaya-Dobhi Section) of National Highway No. 83 in the district of Gaya. The said Notification, as contained in Annexure-2 with the writ application, was published in extraordinary issue of Gazette of India dated 25.10.2010 and circulated through the newspapers dated 27.12.2010. The common grievance of the petitioners of the two writ applications is that their only piece of land with their only residential house thereon was taken into acquisition rendering them homeless. Hence, common prayer in both the writ applications are to quash the said Notification, the declaration dated 3.6.2011, as published in the newspaper on 18.7.2011, vide Annexure-6A and the order of respondent No. 5 dated 21.7.2012, as contained in Annexure-5 (wrongly mentioned in the first paragraph of the writ application as Annexure-6), by which the objections of the petitioners and others were considered in terms of the Division Bench orders of this Court and were rejected. From the pleadings of both the writ applications, it is clear that only plea the petitioners of these two writ applications in support of their case is that instead of laying down the New Bypass Road in the stretch Patna-Gaya-Dobhi Section of the National Highway No. 83 through the Bajitpur village, the respondents should have widened the existing National Highway passing through the Belaganj Bazar by using the available adjoining Government land and removing the encroachments, thus saving the villagers from being deprived of their fertile land and residential houses etc. An identical pleading in this regard has been made in paragraph 16 of both the writ applications which reads as follows:--

(2.) Through the supplementary affidavit petitioners have brought on record a list of properties and buildings, going to be affected by acquisition, as Annexure-8. Petitioners have also tried to demonstrate that the area was in the process of development, vide an agreement of State Bank of India with one of the villagers produced alongwith the said list. A vague plea has also been taken that all the objectors were not heard before the impugned order was passed by the Collector, vide Annexure-5.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court; (i) in the case of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana, 2012 1 SCC 792], and (ii) in the case of Dev Sharan vs. Stats of U.P., 2011 4 SCC 769]. He also submitted that the Notifications were issued by the Ministry under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 without following the procedure as laid down in Section 3C.