RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure-8), passed by Respondent No. 7-District Land Acquisition Officer-Ramgarh cum competent authority, rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioners and other villagers against acquisition of their lands.

(2.) Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, referring to the letter dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure-10), written by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, submitted that there was some difference in the requisition and the land falling under alignment, on which there was serious objections of the villagers but no decision has been taken in this regard. Referring to the Minutes of Meeting dated 6.9.2010, he submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh suggested change in proposed alignment in Kanke Bar village saying that the proposed alignment takes a U turn in the said village which instead can be straightened. Referring to the Map, he submitted that if the alignment is changed, several buildings including religious places, school, hospital etc. can be saved.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India (N.H.A.I.), submitted that after the objection of the villagers was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner under the said letter dated 3.8.2010, the said meeting held on 6.9.2010 was attended by the Deputy Commissioner and the Secretary, Road Construction Department along with others. He further submitted that it is for the technical persons to decide whether change in alignment will be proper or not. He further submitted that it appears that in the proposed alignment, a gradual curve is aligned instead of comparatively sharp curve, keeping in view that the traffic flows at high speed on highway. He lastly submitted that the impugned order was passed after considering all relevant aspects of the matter. Relying on the order dated 14.2.2011, passed in WPC No. 6310 of 2010, he submitted that a similar writ petition was dismissed by this Court. He also relied on the order dated 5.10.2010, passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4975 of 2010, which reads as follows: