Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankra Ram vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1374/2019
1. Shankra Ram S/o Bheraji, Age About 45 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.)
2. Punama Ram Choudhary S/o Khangara Ji, Age 58 Years,
By Caste Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Jalore (Raj.).
3. Moola Ram S/o Bhera Ji, age about 50 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
4. Bhura Ram S/o Amra Ji, age about 70 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
5. Thana Ram S/o Naga Ramji, age about 48 Years, By
Caste Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Jalore (Raj.).
6. Jaga Ram S/o Waja Ji, age about 60 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
7. Achala Ram S/o Gowaji, age about 60 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
8. Ratna Ram S/o Parkha Ji, age about 56 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Gardhali, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).
9. Wagta Ram S/o Gowaji, age about 48 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Gardhali, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).
10. Narsi Ram S/o Moda Ji, age about 36 Years, By Caste
Kalbi, R/o Pratappura, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. National Highway Authority through its Project Director,
National Highway Authority, New Delhi.
3. The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Cum SDO
Sanchore, District Jalore.
(Downloaded on 16/12/2021 at 08:35:09 PM)
(2 of 5) [SAW-1374/2019]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Choudhary
Mr. T.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
13/12/2021
By the Court: Per Hon'ble Jain, J.
The present appeal under Section 134 of the High Court
Rules is filed against the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by
learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by
appellants/petitioners was dismissed.
On 20.08.2018, a Gazette notification was published
whereby land has been proposed to be acquired under National
Highway Act, 1956 by the Respondent Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways (MORTH) under the prestigious project called Bharat
Mala Pariyogana connecting major cities of India with six to eight
lane highways with service lanes on both sides.
On 05.09.2018, the land acquisition officer published notice
under Section 3(A) of National Highways Act whereby objections
were invited from affected citizens. On 18.09.2018, the appellants
who are Khatedars (having all rights of ownership over land) of
the various parcels of land situated in village Makhupura,
Pratappura and Gardali, submitted representation wherein
primarily they submitted that curve in National Highway has been
unnecessarily given from village Budsom. The contentions of
appellants, was that the curve will increase the length of road
around 12 to 15 kilometers, whereas, the direct length from
(3 of 5) [SAW-1374/2019]
village Budsom to Mesara is only about 6 kilometres and there is
no requirement of curve. The respondents did not consider the
representation and therefore, the appellants filed writ petition
before the learned Single Judge. After consideration of facts and
position of law, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition on account of the fact that as per provisions of Section 3C
of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, the scope of enquiry
is limited to object to the use of the land for the purpose or the
purposes mentioned in that sub-Section and not otherwise. The
learned Single Judge also relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment reported in 2005 (13) SCC 477 titled as Competent
Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. reported in
2005 (13) S.C.C. 477.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is
filed before this Court.
It is submission of the appellants that Section 3C has been
given a very restricted meaning and the fact is that if the
respondents properly align the highway in question, the work can
be carried out in an economical, cheaper and effective manner and
instead of 20-25 kilometers, the road length can be shortened to
around 10-12 kilometers and the highway can straight away being
linked with Gujarat National Highway MESARA.
We have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsels for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the
respondents, perused the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 and
gone through the provisions of National Highway Authorities Act,
1956 and looked at the record.
National Highway Authority of India is a statutory agency
recognized in law and to carry out infrastructure work in a
(4 of 5) [SAW-1374/2019]
rational, effective and expert manner. For executing the projects
like "Bharatmala Pariyojana" and others, feasibility study, research
study and topography etc. are undertaken through expert
agencies and by their own team. In the additional affidavit
submitted by the appellants there is admission qua the fact that
the curve in the national highway is on account of gas pipeline,
proximity to the industrial park, religious and commercial,
residential activities and construction.
Considering the above impediments and hurdles and keeping
in mind an expert opinion and long term uses of the national
highway and to avoid accidents, highway obstructions / traffic
congestion perhaps the said curve if any, must have been desired.
These are the disputed question of facts which cannot be
considered and decided merely on the basis of affidavits, while
exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The first submission of the appellants that the curve can be
avoided and it extends distance of National Highway by 25
kilometers approximately, is totally untenable as the exclusive
domain for fixing the alignment of a national highway lies with the
NHAI. This exercise cannot be a subject matter of judicial review.
The present appeal is also liable to be dismissed as the
limited scope of objections to be entertained under Section 3C of
the Act would be restricted for "object, to the use of land". In the
present matter, object of the national highway is admittedly
construction of "Bharatmala Pariyojana" and therefore the
objections raised by the appellants are beyond the scope of
Section 3C of the Act.
(5 of 5) [SAW-1374/2019]
In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the
impugned judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by learned Single
Judge is well reasoned and based upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment delivered in Competent Authority Vs. Barangore
Jute Factory & Ors. reported in 2005 (13) S.C.C. 477 and
does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in this
intra Court appeal. As a result, the appeal is hereby dismissed
being devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
50-Ns/Amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
