Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2025:CGHC:20972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2015 of 2022 1 - Anjani Kumar Tamrakar S/o Shri Ramshankar Tamrakar Aged About 51 Years R/o Urmila Kunj, Ward No.48, Infront Of Laxmi Niwas, Lodhipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Seema Tamrakar W/o Shri Anjani Kumar Tamrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Urmila Kunj, Ward No.48, Infront Of Laxmi Niwas, Lodhipara Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Vishal Gupta S/o Late Shri Anand Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rahul Gupra S/o Late Shri Anand Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nilam Gupta Wd/o Late Shri Anand Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Mangla Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry, Of Road, Transport And Highways, New Delhi. 2 3 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) -Cum-Land Acquistion Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Sakri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through Project Director, Project Impelmentarion Unit, Bilaspur, Office At - D-61, H.I.G-1, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners :- Mr. Devendra Patel & Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocates For State :- Mr. Santosh Bharat, P.L. For Respondent No. 6 :- Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 07.05.2025 1. The instant writ petition is being filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the illegal, arbitrary, and high-handed actions and inactions of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 6 – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), who without acquiring the Petitioner’s land in accordance with law, have unlawfully occupied and utilized 3 the same for highway development, thereby violating the Petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The actions of the Respondents are further violative of the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as they amount to an unjust, unfair, and unreasonable deprivation of property, livelihood, and the right to carry on business or occupation without due process or payment of just compensation. The Respondents, being ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are legally bound to act in a fair and lawful manner, yet have failed to initiate any lawful acquisition proceedings or compensate the Petitioner, despite repeated use of the Petitioner’s valuable land. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Land Acquisition of Petitioner land and in respect of the land acquisition proceedings undertaken, in the possession of the Respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain Respondent from interfering the property of the Petitioner without acquiring the land and following the due process of law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay proper compensation to the Petitioner for land admeasuring about 894 sq.mtr. of Khasra No. 767/1 within a stipulated time period. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 4 pleased to direct the Respondents to further pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for denying the Petitioner rights over his property. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case including grant cost of the petition to the Petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are joint owners of land situated at Khasra No. 767/1, Patwari Halka No. 40, Village Samalpuri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), measuring about 0.526 hectares. Respondent No. 6, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), a statutory body and ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, undertook the widening of National Highway No. 130 and initiated land acquisition proceedings through Respondent No. 4, resulting in an award dated 01.06.2018 for 394 sq. meters of the Petitioners’ land. However, as per a demarcation report dated 26.03.2019, around 0.37 acres were actually affected, leaving only 0.59 acres with the Petitioners. Despite an objection filed on 01.02.2019, a further award dated 21.12.2019 was passed for 210 sq. meters without proper notice or due process, and the compensation granted was inadequate. In total, while 604 sq. meters were acquired, 894 sq. meters were affected, leaving 0.22 acres uncompensated. The Petitioners, though supportive of national development, have faced repeated acquisition and unauthorized occupation of their 5 land without lawful procedure or fair compensation, amounting to a violation of their right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 has not awarded for the land which has been taken over in excess and further the amount of award which has been granted in favour of the petitioners are very much in lower side. The authorities have taken advantage of the status of the petitioners and while acting in arbitrary and discriminatory manner they have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India. The respondent authorities cannot by any strech of imagination infringe the right guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, as no person can be deprived from his property without due process of law and even if any acquisition is to be taken, it should be while following due process of law and paying just compensation. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the the land in question was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, and an award dated 01.06.2018 was duly passed, pursuant to which a sum of ₹10,70,498/- was paid to the Petitioner. Subsequently, upon receiving objections and completing further proceedings, another award dated 21.12.2019 was passed, granting an additional compensation of ₹16,85,408/- to the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 22.05.2020, the competent 6 authority issued a letter to the Project Director, NHAI, recommending issuance of a notification under Section 3A of the Act for land that was previously left out due to clerical oversight. The compensation was determined as per Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, and in case of any grievance regarding the quantum of compensation, the statute provides a specific remedy through arbitration and the Petitioner, without availing the said statutory remedy, has directly approached this Hon’ble Court, hence, the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy and is liable to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that so far as the allegation regarding acquisition of excess land is concerned, when it was found that the land is required for acquisition, later on, subsequent compensation was awarded while award dated 21.12.2019 and as such, the award for excess land i.e. 210 square meters was also awarded to the petitioners. According to the NHAI, the proper compensation has already been awarded and the proper course would be to file an appropriate application under Section 3(G)(5) read with Section 3(G)(6) of the National Highway Act and the application should be filed before the learned Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act. In sum and substance, the petitioner as filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their 7 submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the
Decision
documents appended to the writ petition. 8. From the reliefs prayed by the petitioners, it seems that the land of the petitioners was taken for widening of the National Highway Bilaspur-Katghora. It also seems that the compensation was calculated and award was also passed, however, the petitioners raised a dispute that the extra land has been taken away and the compensation has not been paid for it, in accordance with law. 9. From perusal of the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners, it seems that for the reliefs sought by the petitioners there is an alternative remedy available under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956. For the sake of convenience, Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956 is quoted hereinbelow;- “3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.— (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) 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--” 10. From perusal of the aforementioned Section, the petitioners 8 should have approached before the Arbitrator while raising his dispute in respect of the grievance of the petitioners. However, instead of approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, the petitioner has filed this petition, which seems to be not maintainable. 11. In this respect, it would be profitable to consider the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69, which helds as under: "28. 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 the 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." 12. In light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that NHAI is a 9 professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways and further considering the fact that the alternate remedy available under the law as per Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, therefore, I do not consider it to be fit case to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the petitioners are having efficacious remedy available to him under the law as per Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 14. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act. Vishakha Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge