Uttarakhand High Court
Ranveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 896 of 2025 (M/S)
Ranveer Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........ Respondent
Present : Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Naresh Pant (through video conferencing) and Mr. Raunak Pant,
Advocates for the respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the
impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, issued by the
respondent no.3 to the petitioner under Sub-Section 2 of
Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and
Traffic) Act, 2002 ("the Act"). The petitioner also seeks
directions that the appeal, preferred under Section 3G(5)
of the National Highway Act, 1956, may also be directed
to be decided expeditiously.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025 is not
in accordance with law. He would submit that the
petitioner ought to have been given time to make a
representation and a date needs to be specified for such
hearing, which, it is argued, is not given in the instant
case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would
submit that the petitioner had already taken entire
compensation; the family members of the petitioner have
given an undertaking to remove the encroachment within
a period of 3 days. He very fairly concedes that the notice
under Section 26(2) of the Act, which is impugned, does
not meet the requirement of law; it does not give space for
hearing to the petitioner.
5. Section 26 of the Act is relevant for the purpose
of deciding the instant petition. It reads as follows:-
26. Removal of unauthorised occupation.--(1)
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
(2) When, as a result of the periodical inspection of highway
land or otherwise, the Highway Administration or the officer
authorised by such Administration in this behalf is satisfied
that any unauthorised occupation has taken place on
highway land, the Highway Administration or the officer so
authorised shall serve a notice in a prescribed form on the
person causing or responsible for such unauthorised
occupation requiring him to remove such unauthorised
occupation and to restore such highway land in its original
condition as before the unauthorised occupation within the
period specified in the notice.
(3) The notice under sub-section (2) shall specify therein the
highway land in respect of which such notice is issued, the
period within which the unauthorised occupation on such
land is required to be removed, the place and time of hearing
any representation, if any, which the person to whom the
notice is addressed may make within the time specified in
the notice and that failure to comply with such notice shall
render the person specified in the notice liable to penalty,
and summary eviction from the highway land in respect of
which such notice is issued, under sub-section (6).
.........................................................................................
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................"
6. A bare reading of the above sub-Sections
makes it abundantly clear that a notice under Section
26(2) of the Act may be given requiring the unauthorized
occupant to remove his occupation, but Section 26(3) of
the Act makes some provisions in this regard. According
to it, a notice under Section 26(2) of the Act should
specify the period within which the unauthorized
occupation on such land is required to be removed. The
place and time of hearing representation, also needs to be
specified.
7. In the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, the
place and time of hearing any representation, which the
petitioner may make, has not been given.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that had the petitioner been given an opportunity,
he would have made a representation and would have
offered himself for hearing on his representation.
9. Apparently, the impugned notice does not meet
the requirements of law, as given under Section 26(3)
onwards of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notice
deserves to be quashed and accordingly, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
10. The petition is allowed. The impugned notice
dated 19.03.2025, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is
quashed. However, the respondent no.3 shall be at liberty
to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.03.2025
Ravi Bisht
