Allahabad High Court
Yusuf Khan vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13976 of 2019
Petitioner :- Yusuf Khan
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Rajshekhar Srivastava
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajshekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ram Chand, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Yusuf Khan with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the plots in dispute having an area of 24 square metre and 109 square metre (total 133 square metre purchased through two sale deeds on 16.07.2013) situated in village- Sherkot B-A (towards south and east of Dhampur Kalagarh Road) Pargana and Tehsil- Dhampur, District- Bijnor, without applying the procedure of law given under the National Highway Act, 1956 (Act No. 48 of 1956) and the procedure given under The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act No. 13 of 2003).
Although it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are trying to take forcible possession of the disputed plots without following the procedure prescribed either under the National Highway Act, 1956 (Act No. 48 of 1956) or under The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act No. 13 of 2003) but from the perusal of the document which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, it transpires that a notice purported to be u/s 26 (2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act No. 13 of 2003) has already been given by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner and in response thereof, he has filed his objection before the District Magistrate on 13.12.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as (Annexure No. 5) to the writ petition although he was required to submit his objection before the respondent no. 2 which is the authority competent to decide a dispute u/s 26 (2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act No. 13 of 2003). Moreover, the question whether the land from which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are allegedly trying to dispossess the petitioner belongs to him or not is a disputed question of fact which can be examined only on the basis of evidence. Moreover, we find that the petitioner has got a statutory alternative remedy of filing a representation before the competent authority u/s 26 (3) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (Act No. 13 of 2003).
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file his objection against the notice dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure No. 4) raising all the grounds which have been taken by him in this writ petition along with the certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today.
In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 within the period indicated hereinabove, he shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order expeditiously, if possible, within a period of two months.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
KS
