K.Venkateswarlu vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1785 AP

4      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                    WRIT PETITION No.1924 of 2021
ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or direction declaring the notification issued under

Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') which

was published in 'Sakshi' Telugu daily newspaper on 14.07.2020, and the

declaration issued under Section 3D of the Act which was published in

'Praja Sakthi' Telugu daily newspaper on 12.11.2020, as illegal, arbitrary

and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, on various grounds.

2. Heard Mr.O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing

respondent No.1, Mr.S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for National

Highways Authority of India (NHAI), representing respondent No.2 and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing

respondent Nos.3 and 4.

3. The petitioner is a retail outlet dealer of Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Limited. He obtained lease of land situated in survey

Nos.236/4B and 236/6 of Vinnamala Village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR

Nellore District and established a retail petroleum outlet thereon, in the

year 2006. It is his grievance that by virtue of the impugned notification

and the declaration with regard to acquisition of land for laying road

(National Highway), the entire retail petroleum outlet area would be

acquired and thereby, he would be deprived of running the retail

petroleum outlet.

4. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits

that initially, a notification was issued under Section 3A of the Act, which

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

was published on 17.03.2019 and by virtue of the same, only a small

extent of land taken on lease by the petitioner for establishment of retail

petroleum outlet was sought to be acquired and that the same was not

causing any hindrance for running the outlet. He submits that

subsequently, the petitioner came to know that another notification was

issued under Section 3A of the Act which was published in 'Sakshi' Telugu

daily newspaper on 14.07.2020 and thereafter, a declaration under

Section 3D of the Act was also issued which was published in 'Praja

Sakthi' Telugu daily newspaper on 12.11.2020. While contending that

'Praja Sakthi' Telugu daily newspaper has no wide circulation, he submits,

inter alia, that the notification and the declaration referred to above are

not legal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

(ii) The learned counsel, while referring to Section 3(b) of the Act,

submits that the Act defines what 'land' is; that Section 3A(2) of the Act

specifically contemplates that every notification under Sub-Section (1) of

Section 3A of the Act shall give a brief description of 'land' and that in the

notification impugned in the present case, except the survey number,

there is no mention about the name or details of landowner or existence

of retail petroleum outlet or other things attached to earth etc.,.

He, therefore, contends that the notification as is issued does not satisfy

the requirement of Section 3A(2) of the Act and in the absence of giving

particulars of 'land', which includes benefits to arise out of land and things

attached to the earth etc., like the retail petroleum outlet as in the present

case, the persons interested would not have knowledge about the

notification. He submits that as the impugned notification does not

contain the details of the outlet, the petitioner had no opportunity to

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

submit his objections and thereby deprived of his valuable right under

Section 3C of the Act. He further submits that even otherwise also, the

petitioner cannot be expected to file his objections, since the orders

passed by the Central Government under the Disaster Management Act,

2005, were in force due to Covid-19 pandemic as on the date of

publication of the notification as also on the date of publication of the

declaration. He contends that for the said reason also, the impugned

notification issued under Section 3A of the Act and the declaration issued

under Section 3D of the Act are liable to be quashed.

(iii) The learned counsel also submits that on the basis of the

plans prepared by the earlier consultant, 60% to 70% of road works were

executed. However, subsequently, a new consultant was engaged and on

the basis of a report submitted by it, the authorities have deviated from

the original plan and issued the notification impugned in the present case.

While submitting that the second notification was issued with a view to

favour some persons, the learned counsel submits that the action of the

respondents is not just or permissible, more particularly, as major part of

the work on the basis of the report of the earlier consultant was already

executed. He submits that undertaking of road works on the basis of the

report of the new consultant, according to the petitioner's information,

would result in increase of the project cost by Rs.20 crores, which is not

in the public interest. Further, due to the issuance of the second

notification on the basis of the report of the new consultant, the entire

retail petroleum outlet of the petitioner would be affected, virtually

depriving him of running the outlet. Accordingly, he seeks a direction to

set aside the impugned notification and the consequential declaration.

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for NHAI,

representing respondent No.2, submits that description of land as notified

in the impugned notification is sufficient and no specific details with

regard to name of landowner etc., are required to be furnished.

He submits that as it is mentioned in the impugned notification that the

plans are available for verification, the same is sufficient and the persons

interested are required to verify them and file their objections, if any.

While relying on the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of

erstwhile common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Dano

Vaccines & Biological (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. Government of

India1, the learned standing counsel submits that similar contentions of

the landowners were rejected in the said case. He submits that the

impugned notification and the declaration are in accordance with the

provisions of the Act and that the facts and circumstances of the present

case do not warrant any interference by this Court in the road works for

National Highways undertaken in the larger interest of the public.

He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

representing respondent Nos.3 and 4, while supporting the contentions

advanced by the learned standing counsel for NHAI, submits that as the

petitioner, who is a lease holder, did not submit any objections pursuant

to the notification issued under Section 3A, an award was passed on

25.01.2021. She submits that having failed to submit the objections,

the petitioner cannot validly challenge the subsequent declaration.

Further, she places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme

2012(2) ALD 387 DB

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty2 and submits that the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating his

submissions with reference to the definition of 'land' under Section 3(b) of

the Act, contends that if the intention of the Legislature is to the effect

that mere mentioning of survey numbers and attachment of plans to the

notification is sufficient, there is no necessity to give brief

description/particulars. He submits that unless specific details of the land,

which will enable its identification with reference to its ownership and

other particulars like structures and things attached to the earth in terms

of Section 3(b) of the Act, are mentioned in the notification, a person

interested in the land like the petitioner in the present case would not

have an opportunity to file objections and would be deprived of the right

of hearing as contemplated under Section 3C(2) of the Act and thereby,

the very purpose of Section 3C of the Act would become otiose.

He further submits that once the Statute confers power to acquire land,

all the details have to be furnished without any ambiguity and the Act,

being an exproprietory legislation, has to be construed strictly.

He submits that the contention that the petitioner is only a lease holder of

the land deserves no appreciation, inasmuch as the petitioner established

a retail petroleum outlet in the land sought to be acquired, dependant on

the same and a person interested in the 'land'. He submits that as per

the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act, the land includes benefits that

arise out of the land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened

to anything attached to the earth and since the notification was vague as

2011(12) SCC 69

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

the details of the retail petroleum outlet of the petitioner were not notified

therein, the substantive right of the petitioner to file objections was taken

away and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that

on a reading of the provisions of Section 3A, 3C and 3D of the Act coupled

with the definition of 'land', the intention of the Parliament is clear that an

opportunity to the person interested in the land to put-forth his objections

with regard to the proposed acquisition of land shall be accorded. He also

submits that as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing,

the principles of natural justice are violated and had the petitioner was

afforded an opportunity of hearing, he would have raised all the issues,

including the escalation of cost of the project due to change of plans on

the basis of the second consultant's report etc., before the competent

authority. Summing up his arguments, the learned counsel seeks grant of

relief as sought for.

8. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of

the Act i.e., Section 3, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D etc., which were substituted by

Act 16 of 1997.

Section 3 of the Act definitions 'competent authority' and 'land'.

As per Section 3(a) of the Act, 'competent authority' means any person or

authority authorized by the Central Government by notification in the

Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for

such area as may be specified in the notification. As per Section 3(b) of

the Act, 'land' includes benefit to arise out of land and things attached to

the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

Section 3A of the Act provides for power to acquire land etc.,.

Sub-Section(1) of Section 3A of the Act contemplates that upon

satisfaction of the Central Government that a land is required for building,

maintenance, management or operation of national highway or part

thereof for public purpose, a notification declaring its intention to acquire

such land has to be published in the Official Gazette. Sub-Section (2) of

Section 3A of the Act envisages that every notification under Section

3A(1) of the Act shall give a brief description of the land. Sub-Section (3)

of Section 3A of the Act envisages that the competent authority shall

cause substance of the notification to be published in two local

newspapers, one of which to be in a vernacular language.

Section 3B of the Act provides for power to enter for survey etc.,

on the issuance of a notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3A of

the Act in respect of the land sought to be acquired.

Section 3C of the Act deals with hearing of the objections.

Sub-Section (1) of Section 3C of the Act contemplates that any person

interested in the land notified under Section 3A(1) of the Act may object

to the use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that

Sub-Section within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 3C of the Act requires the competent authority

to give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or

through a legal practitioner and either allow or disallow the said

objections, after hearing all such objections and making further enquiry,

by an order.

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

Section 3D of the Act deals with declaration of acquisition.

Sub-Section (1) of Section 3D of the Act contemplates that where no

objections under Section 3C(1) of the Act are received or where the

competent authority disallowed the objections under Section 3C(2) of the

Act, the competent authority shall submit a report to the Central

Government, which in turn, by notification in the Official Gazette shall

declare that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes

mentioned in Sub-Section(1) of Section 3A of the Act. Further, Section

3D(2) of the Act contemplates that on publication of the declaration under

Section 3D(1) of the Act, the land shall vest absolutely in the Central

Government, free from all encumbrances.

Section 3E of the Act provides for power to take possession.

Section 3F of the Act deals with the right to enter into the land where the

land has vested in the Central Government.

Section 3G of the Act deals with the determination of amount

payable as compensation. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3G of the Act

envisages that for the land acquired under the Act, the amount

determined by an order of the competent authority shall be paid.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 3G of the Act contemplates payment of

compensation where the right of user or any right in the nature of an

easement on any land is acquired under the Act, to the owner and any

other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in

any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition.

Sub-Section (3) of Section 3G of the Act stipulates that before

proceeding to determine the amount payable, the competent authority

shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

of which to be in a vernacular language, inviting claims from all persons

interested in the land to be acquired. Sub-Section (4) of Section 3G of

the Act contemplates that a public notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act

shall state the particulars of the land and require all the persons

interested in such land, to appear either in person or by an agent or by a

legal practitioner. Sub-Section (4) of Section 3G of the Act envisages that

if the amount determined by the competent authority under Sub-Section

(1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 3G of the Act is not acceptable to either

of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties,

be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central

Government. Thus, the Act is a self contained code.

9. Against the background of the above legal provisions and on a

scrutiny of the contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side,

the following points emerge for consideration by this Court:

1) Whether the impugned notification issued under Section 3A of the Act without reference to the name of landowner, details of the petroleum outlet in respect of the land proposed to be acquired is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the consequential declaration issued under Section 3D of the Act is also vitiated accordingly?

2) Whether reference to the plans in respect of the land in the impugned notification would meet the requirement of giving a brief description of the 'land' in terms of Section 3A(2) of the Act?

3) Whether by virtue of non-disclosure of the details of the petroleum outlet, which falls within the definition of 'land' under Section 3(b) of the Act, was the petitioner deprived of his rights under Section 3C(2) of the Act?

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

4) To what relief?

10. Point No.1:

The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, while referring to Section 3(b) of the Act, is that since the

definition of 'land' includes "benefits to arise out of the land and things

attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the

earth", the details of the retail petroleum outlet of the petitioner which is

situated in the land proposed to be acquired are also required to be

notified under Section 3A of the Act and a mere mentioning of survey

numbers of the land, which is sought to be acquired, is not sufficient and

would not amount to strict compliance of the provisions of the Act, all the

more when the impugned action of the respondents affects the rights of

the petitioner, who is a person interested in the land, by virtue of a lease

and establishment of the retail petroleum outlet thereon. The learned

counsel also contends that as the Act is an exproprietory legislation,

the provisions thereof have to be strictly adhered to. It is no doubt true

that the Act is an exproprietory legislation, but as it takes away the rights

of the landowners/persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired,

the contention of the petitioner's counsel at the first breath, appears to be

correct. However, basing on the judicial pronouncements the contention

cannot, but be rejected for the reasons elaborated hereinafter.

11. The definition of 'land' under Section 3(b) of the Act is in pari

materia with the definition of 'land' under Section 3(a) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Land Acquisition Act') and Section 3(p) of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act 30 of 2013').

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

As the definition of 'land' clearly indicates that it includes benefits arising

out of land and the things attached thereto, it is not required that the

notification in respect of the land proposed to be acquired should contain

the details of the things attached thereon. It would suffice, the details of

the land are notified. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka v. Narasimha Murthy and others3, while dealing with a

case of notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition

of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, inter alia, held that omission

to mention name of landowner in the notification does not vitiate the

same. Further, in Bai Malimabu and others v. State of Gujarat and

others4, the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of

notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia,

held that the notification need not mention the superstructure as the

definition of 'land' in Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act includes the

superstructure.

12. Applying the above analogy and in the light of the judicial

pronouncements referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view

that non-mentioning of the name of landowner or particulars of petroleum

outlet etc., in the impugned notification would not amount to violation of

provisions of the Act, nor vitiate the notification and the consequential

declaration. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2:

One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the details of the land as is notified in the impugned

(1995) 5 SCC 524

AIR 1978 SC 515 = (1978) 2 SCC 373

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

notification does not satisfy the brief description of 'land' as envisaged in

Section 3A(2) of the Act and mere reference to plans etc., in the

notification would not amount to strict compliance with the statutory

requirements of the enactment like in the present case. He submits that

the Act, being an expropriatory legislation, the provisions thereof have to

be construed strictly. In this regard, it may be noted here that what

would mean and include 'brief description' cannot precisely be defined.

Unlike the notifications in respect of acquisition under the other

enactments like Act 30 of 2013, which requires publication of 'details of

land' proposed to be acquired, there appears to be a conscious departure

insofar as the National Highways Act, 1956 is concerned, which is a

comprehensive code by itself and a special legislation enacted by the

Parliament for acquisition of land required for building, maintenance,

management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof from

notifying all the particulars of land in detail by mentioning the name of

landowner, structures in the land etc.,. Even in respect of the matters

arising under the Land Acquisition Act, as noticed supra, the expression of

the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above would

make it clear that there is no such requirement in law.

14. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore

Jute Factory and Others5 and in the considered opinion of this Court,

the contentions raised by the petitioner herein have to be negated in the

light of the expression of the Honourable Supreme Court therein.

Dealing with the attendant facts and circumstances, the Honourable

2005(13) SCC 477

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

Supreme Court, while approving the judgment of High Court of Calcutta to

the effect that the notification should at least contain reference to the

plans of the area proposed for acquisition and its availability with the

competent authority, held that absence of the same renders the

notification invalid. The Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with

the provisions of the Act, rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of

NHAI and it would be profitable to extract the relevant observations made

therein, which reads thus:

"9. The availability of a plan would have made all the difference. If there is a plan, the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately. The question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of brief description of land under Section 3A(2) goes to the root of the matter. The High Court rightly observed: "It is just not possible to proceed to determine the necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of land without preparation of a proper plan".......... ".......The impugned judgment of the High Court emphasizes the need for a plan. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that no plan was produced before it. The absence of any reference to a plan in the impugned notification and infact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies the argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the impugned notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders the notification invalid."

Though it was held that the notification impugned in the said case failed

to meet the requirement of law i.e., Section 3A(2) of the Act and the

invalid notification renders all subsequent steps invalid, the Honourable

Supreme Court was not inclined to quash the notification as the

construction of National Highway on the acquired land was completed.

15. It may be noted here that in the case on hand, the notification in

question refers to the land plans, details thereof and the availability of

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

same with the competent authority for inspection of the same by the

persons interested in the land. It is not the case of the petitioner that no

such plans were available for inspection, but in the absence of notifying

the details of the petroleum outlet of the petitioner, he cannot be

expected to know about the proposed acquisition of land, where his retail

petroleum outlet is situated and thereby he was denied the opportunity to

file his objections.

16. In the context of a challenge to the notification issued under the

provisions of the Act, the Honourable Division Bench of erstwhile common

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Government of India v.

M.Ramesh Babu and others6, while dealing with similar contentions,

set aside the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the notification.

In the said case, the preliminary notification contained not only the name

of the village, survey number/division number, type of the land, area

sought to be acquired, but also refers in clear terms that the interested

persons can inspect the land plans and other details of the land covered

by the notification. The Honourable Division Bench, looking into the

notification, held that it not only contained the description of the land

proposed to be acquired, but also mentioned that the land plans and other

details of the land covered by the notification are available in the office of

the competent authority and interested persons can inspect the same, and

accordingly, while allowing the writ appeal, dismissed the writ petition,

holding that if there was some ambiguity in the particulars incorporated in

the notification, the writ petitioners could have approached the competent

W.A.No.504 of 2007, judgment dated 19.09.2007

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

authority and inspected the land plans and other details and then filed

their objections, but such a course was not adopted.

17. In another case, the Honourable Division Bench of erstwhile

common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Dano Vaccines's case

(supra 1), while dealing with the similar contentions that the preliminary

notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act did not divulge the full

description of the lands to be acquired and fell foul of the requirement of

Section 3A(2) of the Act, rejected the same by referring to the judgment

in M.Ramesh Babu's case (supra 6). The relevant portion of the

judgment in Dano Vaccines's case (supra 1) reads thus:

"21. In the present case, however, the notification dated 27.11.2009 specifically stated that land plans and other details of the lands covered by the notification were available and could be inspected by interested persons at the office of the competent authority. Thus, the appellants, in the event they entertained any doubt with regard to the description of the land notified for acquisition, could have approached the office of the competent authority for resolving the same. They did not choose to do so. It is not their case that such land plans were not available though stated so in the notification.

22. Reference in this regard may also be made to the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of India v. M.Ramesh Babu, W.A.No.504 of 2007 and W.P.No.378 of 2007 dated 19.9.2007. Referring to Barangore Jute Factory's case(supra), the Division Bench observed that if the notification made it clear that the land plans and other details of the land covered by the notification were available in the office of the competent authority for inspection by interested persons, it was for those who thought that there was ambiguity in the particulars incorporated in the notification to approach the competent authority and inspect the land plans and other details and thereafter file their objections. The Division Bench held against the land owners in that case as they did

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

not choose to adopt that course. The same is the situation in the present case. Thus, technicalities aside, even on merits this challenge warrants rejection."

18. It may also be appropriate here to refer to the decision of the

Honourable Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Lal Mani Jain v.

Union of India7, wherein, while referring to the notification under

challenge, a view was taken to the effect that reference to plans in

respect of land proposed to be acquired and their availability with the

competent authority for inspection by the interested persons would

amount to substantive compliance in terms of Section 3A(2) of the Act.

At paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it was observed as under:

"The schedule to the said notification is in great detail. Beyond the ipse dixit that plans have not been shown, there is no further evidence or cogent material to convince us to conclude that plans were not available for inspection in the office of the appropriate authority."

19. Thus, the legal position referred to above makes it clear that it

would suffice if the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act

contains the particulars of the land proposed to be acquired, referring to

the plans in respect of the same and availability thereof with the

competent authority, that there is no requirement to notify the structures,

things attached to the earth like the petroleum outlet in the present case

and it is for the persons interested to inspect the plans and file their

objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. The notification in question

satisfies the above position. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

2009 SCC online Delhi 3683

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

20. Point No.3:

In view of the conclusions arrived at with reference to Point Nos.

1 and 2, though Point No.3 is also liable to be negated, it may be

appropriate to deal with the contentions advanced in this regard.

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, the right

to object the proposed acquisition of land is substantive and deprival of

the same would render Section 3C(2) of the Act providing an opportunity

of hearing, otiose. Such a situation did not arise in the present case

inasmuch as the petitioner is under an obligation to submit his objections

after inspection of the plans available with the competent authority in

terms of the notification. As the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity,

it is not correct to contend that he was denied the right to file objections.

Further, in view of the inclusive definition of 'land', which includes the

benefits that arise out of land and things attached to the earth or

permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth,

non-disclosure of details of the retail petroleum outlet would not place the

petitioner in any disadvantageous position nor deprive him of his statutory

rights, once the notification refers to land plans and other details and

availability thereof with the competent authority for inspection by the

interested persons and for filing objections, if any, thereon. As pointed

out earlier, it is not the case of the petitioner that no plans were available,

much less reference to the same in the notification. In fact, it appears

that no attempt has been made to ascertain about the same. It is not a

case of denial of opportunity as such, but failure to avail the same.

Though it was also urged that the orders of Central Government under

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were in operation during the relevant

period and the petitioner cannot be expected to file objections in view of

the same, this Court finds no force in the said plea, as the same was

lacking in material particulars. Therefore, the point No.3 is answered

accordingly.

21. Point No.4:

Before answering this point, the other contentions raised by the

petitioner with regard to change of alignment, which would result in

escalation of project cost by Rs.20 crores etc., are to be considered. In

this regard, except taking a general plea of mala fides, no material, which

would lend support to the said plea, is placed before this Court.

The party for whose benefit the alignment was allegedly changed has not

been impleaded in the present proceedings. In the absence of a specific

plea of mala fides and the material to substantiate the same, it is settled

law that the Courts should refrain to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision to change the

alignment, allegedly taken after laying 60% to 70% of the road, is in the

wisdom of NHAI and cannot be called in question, without a valid basis.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in Kushala Shetty's case (supra 2) relied on

by the learned Assistant Government Pleader of Land Acquisition, the

relevant portions thereof read thus:

"21. The plea of the Respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the Respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favored nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the Appellants are trained by mala fides.

24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."

The expression of the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above, in

the opinion of this Court applies on all fours to the case on hand.

Accordingly, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are

rejected. Thus, in view of the conclusions arrived at as set above, the

petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Point No.4 is answered

accordingly.

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021

22. However, one aspect remains to be dealt with viz., non-filing of the

objections, which as per the contention of the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would disentitle the petitioner to

question the notification and the consequential declaration. Such a plea

was rejected by the Honourable Supreme Court in Barangore Jute

Factory's case (supra 5), wherein it was opined that "the Act confers no

general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant".

Further, though it was contended by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader that no relief can be granted in view of the award, which

according to the petitioner, was passed on coming to know about filing of

the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, being a

person interested in the land acquired, is not precluded from raising his

claim before the competent authority on issuance of the notification under

Section 3G of the Act nor his entitlement to the compensation in terms of

the said Section can be denied. If the petitioner makes any claim with the

relevant material in respect of the retail petroleum outlet, which is

situated in the land proposed to be acquired, the competent authority

shall duly consider the same by giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner in terms of Section 3G(4) of the Act.

23. With the above observations and for the foregoing reasons,

the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ

petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 31st March, 2021 GHN/BLV

NJS,J W.P.No.1924 of 2021