Brief description of land mentioned and plan was made part of notification making it available for inspection; notification u/S 3A of NH Auth. Act fulfills requirement of law.

Brief description of land mentioned and plan was made part of notification making it available for inspection; notification u/S 3A of NH Auth. Act fulfills requirement of law

Since all the petitions involve common question of law and common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners are land holders whose lands have been notified for acquisition under Section 3 A and 3 D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Highways Act) for widening and construction of by-pass including four laning of National Highway No.43 (new N.H.No.30) Raipur – Dhamtari section.

3. Assailing the notifications (Annexure P/5 and P/10), it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notification is not in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 3 A of the Highways Act, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. It is vehemently urged that in the absence of details of part of the land belonging to the petitioners, which is sought to be acquired, they have been denied opportunity to raise objection, as provided under Section 3C of the Act and thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice, which has rendered the entire exercise illegal and arbitrary. Reliance is placed in the matter of Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 SCC 477.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority as well as learned counsel for Union of India and the State Government would argue that the notification itself mentions that the plan of the boundaries and the other details of the land covered under the notification is available in the Office of Competent Authority and the party interested can inspect the plan. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not raised any objection to the effect that the acquisition is not for any public purpose, therefore, the petitions must fail. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3210, it is put forth that when the plan is made part of the notification by making a reference of the same and allowing inspection by the interested parties, the notification is in conformity with the provisions contained under Section 3 A of the Act, therefore, no interference is called for.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.