RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON
Facts
( 1 ) wp 14435.21IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 14435 OF 2021 Manish Omprakash Agrawal,Age: 44 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,R/o Visarvadi, Tq. Navapur,Dist. Nandurbar....PETITIONERV/s.1. The Competent Authority and orSpecial Land Acquisition Officer(National Highway No.6) /Assistant Collector, Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.2.National Highway Authority of India,Through Project Director,NHAI-PIU, Dhule, Mansaram Nagar,Near Circuit House, Sakri Road,Dhule – 424 002.3.Deputy Superintendent of Land Record,Navapur, Tq. Navapur,Dist. Nandurbar.... RESPONDENTS......Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. R.B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent-UOIMr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent-StateMr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for Resp. No.2 ......CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON :27th June, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON :16th August, 2024
Legal Reasoning
( 10 ) wp 14435.21the State on ground of delay and laches cannot evade its legal responsibilitytowards those from whom private property has been expropriated.16.He further relied on the case of Govind Poslya Gavit and Anr. V/s.Competent Authority, 2022 (5) Mh. L.J. 632, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court has held that the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed without dueprocess of law and without acquiring the land of the Petitioners by followingprocedure under Section 3-A to 3-E of the Act,1956. An attempt made byRespondent No. 2 to take possession of the lands of the Petitioners to carry outconstruction is clearly in breach of Section 3-A to 3-D of the Act,1956 andArticle 300-A of the Constitution of India. However, the ratio laid down in boththese case laws are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit in reply and strongly resistedclaim of the Petitioner. According to Respondent No. 2, the Central Governmentissued Gazette notification No. 4178 (A) dated 23.08.2018 u/s 3-A of theAct,1956 declaring its intention to acquire lands required for operation of theN. H. No.6. Section 3C provides that any person may raise objection within aperiod of 21 days from the date of publication of notification to the competentauthority and object the use of land for the purpose or the purposes mentionedin Section 3A. However, the Petitioner himself admitted that he purchased theland out of Gut No. 80 on 26.06.2019. Therefore, this itself shows that the ( 11 ) wp 14435.21vendors of the Petitioner never raised any objection at the relevant time. TheRespondent No. 2 carried the joint measurement in respect of the Gut No.80/1B and at the time of measurement, it was noticed that the Navapur-DhuleDiversion Road is passing through the Gut no. 80/1/B of the village Navapurand an area of 200 Sq. mtrs., is only required for widening of NationalHighway as width of the road which was in existence was of 45 meters becausethe Respondent No. 2 intended to carry out the road construction in the abovesaid gut within the available width of 45 meters.18. Respondent No. 2 submits that in the year 1972 area of 3 A 22 Ri.e. (14340.569 sq.m) and 35 R i.e. (3500 sqm) from land bearing gutno.80/1B & 80/2 respectively already been acquired under award dated28.03.1972 by following due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 for Diversion of Road to the Navapur Town. The measurement andschedule of land prepared by the office of Executive. Engineer, B & C Dept.,Dhule, shows about dimensions of 325 meters X 45 meters which is equal to14,625 sq.mtrs. area and 2 X (30 meters X 36 meters) which is equal to 2160Sq. mtrs. area proposed for acquisition from Gut No. 80/1B and Gut No. 80/2respectively. The award dated 28.03.1972 shows that the Notification u/s 4 ofL.A. Act, 1894 was published on 24.12.1970 and the land acquisition processfrom the Navapur village was initiated. The publication of notice u/s 4(1) of ( 12 ) wp 14435.21the Act and notices served upon the interested persons calling for objections.Thereafter, notification u/s 6 was published on 24.06.1971 in the village andthe locality calling upon the claim of valuations of the lands to be acquired. 19.It is a matter of record that re-measurement was done on15.05.2019 clearly stated that after doing a verification from the measurementsheet dated 20.12.2002 in respect of said Gut number, the area which isacquired shown including the old road. Therefore, it shows that the inflatedarea of 4100 sq. mtr., was shown after including the Dhule-Navapur DiversionRoad. The map of 2002 and the measurement sheet tallied each other.Therefore a letter was sent by Respondent No. 1 (in short CALA) on06.09.2019, for considering new inclusions in 3A, does not give any referenceas to why new supplementary 3A is being proposed. As per order dated19.10.2020 the Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Dhule submitted detail report that,no further acquisition from Gat No.80 is required. The extract of said reportreads as under:"The total area 200 sqm. has already been published in 3(D) notification forgut no.30P/1B. The area mention in new proposed 3(A) proposal is 3960 Sq.Mtrs. from 80/1/B and 80/1/A. Also the nature of land is Agriculture at thetime of notification for acquisition. The PROW shown in submitted sheet forproposed 3(A) proposal is not proper. Therefore this gut 115 & 80/1/4 shouldnot considered as new land pocket which was left ad for Notification”. ( 13 ) wp 14435.2120.Though the Petitioner contented that Gut No. 80 consist of 1 H 30R area i.e. 13,000 sq.mtr. itself is contrary to the record of acquisition done in1972. Further Shri Jitendra Agrawal and Shri Rajesh Agrawal (vendors ofPetitioners) have purchased the land admeasuring 40 R from Ramesh D. Ranafrom Gut No. 80/1B out of 4000 Sq. Mtrs. an area of 2200 Sq. Mtrs., is beingpurchased by the Petitioner. That all the transactions mentioned by thePetitioner are post land acquisition award dated 28.03.1972 in respect of theland from Gut No. 80/1B and 80/2, which are itself contrary and void ab initio,hence, said transactions are not binding upon the State Authorities includingthe present Respondent.21. On perusal of the documents available on record it would showthat an area of 40 R out of Gut No. 80/1B which was acquired portion of theold existing diversion road was purchased by Shri Jitendra Agrawal and ShriRajesh Agrawal from one Shri Rameshchandra Dhansukhlal Rana andsubsequently by the present Petitioner. All the above sale transactions areagainst the provisions of law and are not binding upon Respondent No.2.22.It is not in dispute that on 29.07.2021 that the Co-ordinate Benchof this Court passed an order in W.P. No. 7498 OF 2020 and observed in paraNos. 7 to 12 as under : ( 14 ) wp 14435.21“7. In WP No.7498/2020, besides the 200 Sq. Mts. acquired for whichan award has been declared, no further land is sought to be acquired by theNHAI.8. In view of the above statements, we dispose off all these petitionsby recording the above statements in the light of X-1.9. In the event of any measurement of lands being required to bedone, the District Collector, Nandurbar shall monitor such measurement. Ifany of the petitioner is aggrieved by any portion of their land, over andabove the lands mentioned in X-1, being affected, they would be at libertyto raise a dispute before a CALA. The measurement of lands, if required,shall be undertaken by the District Collector and in presence of all thelitigating parties/title holders/persons having interests in the property,preferably within a period of 30 days.10. Needless to state, any land over and above the details set out in X-1is to be acquired, the procedure laid down in Law shall be followed.11. As these petitions are disposed off, ad-interim order passed by thisCourt stands vacated.12. Parties are at liberty to act on this order being uploaded on theofficial website of the Bombay High Court.”23.It is further canvassed on behalf of Respondent No.2 that theaward dated 28.03.1972 pertaining to Gut No.80/1B and 80/2 was noted to bebrownish and MURMAD and of inferior quality. Therefore, the compensationwas determined to the tune of Rs.3266/- for Gut No. 80/1B and Rs.805/- forGut No. 80/2 along with the amount of solatium vide award dated 28.03.1972 ( 15 ) wp 14435.21against the acquisition of land from above guts. So also, payment ofcompensation paid to the owners of the land Gut No. 80/1B and Gut no.80/2on 09.05.1972. Thus, the land ad-measuring 3 A 22 R i.e. (14340.569 Sq.Mtrs.) from the Gut No. 80/1B and 35 R (3500sq.m) from Gut No. 80/2already acquired vide award dated 28.03.1972 for the construction of diversionroad to Navapur Town.24.Therefore, it clearly appears about existence of disputed questionof facts about measurement carried out in the year 1972 while acquiring GutNo. 80, which has been considered in award dated 28.03.1992 as wellsubsequent measurement carried out on 22.08.1989. On perusal of impugnedorder it prima facie appears that Competent Authority considered correctedmeasurement report dated 02.11.2021 submitted by the Respondent No. 3 andheld that, no land out of Gut No. 80 has been additionally acquired.25. In case of City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s. DosuAardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors.; (2009) 1 SCC 168, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction underArticle 226 is duty-bound to consider whether;(a) adjudication of Writ Petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; ( 16 ) wp 14435.21(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of the limitation;(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. 26.In case in hand it prima facie shows that the Petitioner has failed togive details in respect of purchase of land and it’s boundaries. On the contrary,Respondent No.2 produced sale-deed dated 26.06.2019, which shows that, ShriJitendra Murarilal Agrawal & Shri Rajesh Puranmal Agrawal sold land ad-measuring 0.22 R out of Gut No. 80/P1/B to the present Petitioner. The anothersale deed dated 29-09-2020 shows that the present Petitioner purchased landad-measuring 0.10 R out Gut No. 80/P/1A from the vendors Shri Sandip SatishRana and 4 others. The third sale-deed dated 04.01.2021 shows that thepresent Petitioner again purchased land admeasuring 0.10 R out of Gut No.80/P/1A from the vendors Shri Sandip Satish Rana and 4 others. Therefore, itclearly shows that the Petitioner intentionally and deliberately has not disclosedboundaries of the land purchased by him under different sale-deeds. However,Respondent No.2 denied about boundaries of the lands described in sale-deeds. ( 17 ) wp 14435.21Therefore, in absence of said details, it exhibits suppression of material facts onpart of the Petitioner about purchase of the land and existing old Navapur-Dhule Road subsequent to the acquisition.27. As per measurement dated 28.10.2021 it appears that the land ad-measuring 1900 square meters out of Gut No. 80/1/A and land ad-measuring2200 square meters out of Gut No. 80/1/B affected by acquisition. However, asper second revised joint measurement report carried by the Respondent No. 3,on 02.11.2011 lacking clarity regarding the exact affected area due to landacquisition.28.Further, as per Report dated 15.06.2019 (pg. 232-233 of petitionpaper book) it shows that an area of 2200 Sq.mtrs. in the name of JitendraAgrawal and area of 1900 Sq.mtrs. in the name of one Sandip Satish Rana whois successor/heir of the Rameshchandra Dhansukhlal Rana. The said Reportfurther indicates that the entire area of 2200 + 1900 = 4100 Sq. Mtrs., is anarea from the old existing diversion road. Thus, from the above it becomesclear that the present Petitioner and all his vendors have purchased the landfrom Gut No. 80/1B was already acquired by following due process of law andutilized in the old existing road. ( 18 ) wp 14435.2129.Needless to say that the Petitioner countered reply to theRespondents by filing Rejoinder and contended that in affidavit in reply, theRespondent Authorities have made several incorrect statements, hence, prayedfor taking stringent action against the officers of the Respondents - Authorities.Per contra, serious allegations are being made by the NHAI that the Petitionersin W.P. No. 8674 of 2022 and W.P. No.14435 of 2021 have resorted to creationof documents and forgery. Therefore, on 07.02.2024, this Court passed anorder, which reads as under:“1. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates forsome time, we are quite sure that there are several disputed issues in thecause brought before us in these 2 Petitions. Since there are seriousallegations by the NHAI that the Petitioners have resorted to creation ofdocuments and forgery, we called upon the learned Advocate for thePetitioners i.e. one Petitioner in the first Petition namely ManishOmprakash Agrawal, who is Petitioner No.2 in the second Petitionalongwith Kalpesh Rameshchandra Agrawal, to state as to whether theyare willing to file their independent affidavits in these Petitionsdeclaring that if it is eventually noticed either in these proceedings orany other proceedings concerning the Writ land, that any of thesePetitioners have indulged in fabrication of records or forgery or anydishonest act, they would deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) each,in this Court as costs and would be willing to face criminal prosecution.2. We are granting time to these Petitioners to enter their personalaffidavits in both these matters. The sole Petitioner in the first Petitionwill also have to file a second affidavit in the second Petition also andhe will have to be liable for the same consequences. If these Petitionersare agreeable, they may file their affidavits declaring that they will ( 19 ) wp 14435.21deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as costs in each of these Petitions and suffercriminal prosecution if it is noticed that they have indulged in the abovementioned acts. The affidavits may be filed on or before 16.02.2024, ifdesired. Needless to state, besides the Petitioners, if any Officer/Respondents/Authorities is found to have indulged in any such act, he /she would also be liable to suffer the same consequences. If thePetitioners are not willing to file such affidavits, they are at liberty towithdraw these Petitions and approach the appropriate Civil Court foradjudication on all the issues raised in these Petitions. Nevertheless, itwould be open for the Civil Court to look into the all the allegations andcontentions of the parties.3. Simultaneously, the Petitioners and the Respondents are atliberty to file their written notes of submissions, on or before16.02.2024. List this Petition on 20.02.2024 in the “Urgent Orderscategory”, only to peruse the affidavits, if filed and to receive thewritten notes of submissions.”30. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed affidavits stating that, on28.03.1972 an award has been passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894and acquired land ad-measuring 14400 Sq.mtrs. (1 H 44 R) from Gut No.80/1B and land ad-measuring 3500 Sq. mtrs. (35 R) from Gut No. 80/2. Soalso, appropriate compensation has already been paid to the erstwhile owner,but the Petitioner suppressed material facts. Therefore, we do not appreciatecontention of the Petitioner in this regard. ( 20 ) wp 14435.2131. No doubt, while passing order dated 7th February, 2024, thisCourt observed about leveling serious allegations by the Respondent No. 2N.H.A.I., about creation of documents and forgery. Therefore, this Court calledupon to furnish affidavit declaring that if it is eventually noticed either in theseproceedings or any other proceedings concerning the writ land, that, any ofthese petitioners have found to be indulged in fabrication of record or forgeryor any dishonest act, they would deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs)toward cost and that would be willing to face criminal prosecution. Therefore,the Petitioner was called upon to file second affidavit that if he would be liablefor the same consequences. In response to said order dated 07.02.2024, thePetitioner filed affidavit dated 15.02.2024 and voluntarily deposited Rs.10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court through Demand Draft No. 951505dated 13th February, 2024. This Court had not directed that the amount bedeposited in advance. Needless to say that though the Petitioner and the Officerof Respondent No. 2 alleged each other about creation of documents andforgery, however, this Court cannot deal with disputed issues and conclude asto which of the documents are forged and fabricated. This could be possible ina Civil Suit with the aid of oral and documentary evidence and upon producingthe original Revenue record. Therefore, issue pertaining to manufacturing ofdocuments and forgery of documents is kept open, which can be decided by theCompetent Court of law, if the parties desires to avail of the remedy permissible ( 21 ) wp 14435.21in law. Therefore, amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner withthe Registry of this Court needs to be refunded with accrued interest, if any.32. Needless to say that the Petitioner disputed about measurementcarried out by Respondent No. 2 while acquisition of land in the year 1972 aswell measurement described in award dated 28.03.1972, so also, themeasurement carried by Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No.3 on08.10.2021, 28.10.2021 & 02.11.2021 denied by the Petitioner. Per contra, thePetitioner’s claim is based on the joint measurement allegedly carried out on28.10.2021, however, said measurement denied by Respondent No.2. These aredisputed questions which cannot be decided without proper evidence. ThePetitioner is at liberty to file a Civil Suit for redressal of his grievance, if sodesired.33.Since it clearly appears that this Petition involves disputed andcomplex questions of facts, which do not warrant an adjudication whileexercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as per ratio laid incase of City And Industrial Development Corporation, (supra), present Petitionis liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule isdischarged. ( 22 ) wp 14435.2134.In so far as prayer clause-D is concerned, the Writ land being usedfor construction of public road/public project. Therefore, prayer of thePetitioner is hit by Section 20-A of the Specific Relief Act, which provides asunder:Sec. 20-A - Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructureproject.- (1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under thisAct involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in theSchedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay inthe progress or completion of such infrastructure project.35.Therefore, considering the public infrastructure project and takinginto consideration Section 20-A of the Specific Relief Act, coupled with the factthat this Writ Petition is dismissed, the interim relief granted on 21.12.2021 ishereby vacated. Nevertheless, the Petitioner is at liberty to claim compensationin case he successfully proves about acquisition of his land by the RespondentsAuthorities as per specification claimed by him.36. The amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner berefunded to him with accrued interest, if any. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]L/O37.After the pronouncement of the judgment the learned counsel forthe Petitioner prayed for extension of interim order granted on 21.12.2021 for ( 23 ) wp 14435.21a period of four weeks. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitionersubmit that the Petitioner is under apprehension that the Respondent-NHAImay start road widening construction soon after the judgment is passed by thisCourt and whole purpose of the Petition would be frustrated and as such thePetitioner intends to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learnedcounsel appearing for the Respondent-NHAI strongly opposed the prayer.38.Needless to say that in para 34 of the judgment, we haveconsidered the scope of Section 20-A of the Specific Relief Act which puts baron grant of injunction on a public project which would delay the progress orcompletion of road widening work. Therefore, we are not inclined to considerthe prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]mub
Arguments
( 2 ) wp 14435.21JUDGMENT (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of boththe sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the Petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses-B, C and D as under :- “B. By way of appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the like nature, theimpugned order dated 10th November, 2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 may kindly be quash and set aside and the respondents be directed toinitiate the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of NationalHighway Act, 1956 in pursuant to the joint measurement report submittedby the office of Respondent No. 3 on 15.06.2019, 08.102021, 23.09.2021and 28.10.2021.C. By way of appropriate Writ, Order or Directions in the like nature,an independent officer or any advocate be appointed as a CourtCommissioner to conduct joint measurement of the land of the Petitionerbearing Gut No. 80/1/A and 80/1/B.D. By way of appropriate Writ, Order or Directions in the like nature,the respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from doing any work ofconstruction of road of National Highway No. 6 in the land of Petitionerbearing Gut No. 80/1/A and 80/1/B.”3.Heard at length Mr. D.S. Bagul, the learned counsel for thePetitioner, Mr. Bhosale, the standing counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr.Tambe the leaned AGP for the Respondent No. 3. ( 3 ) wp 14435.214.Perused the written notes of Arguments tendered on behalf of boththe sides. Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed on behalf of therival parties as well after going through the written submission the issue arisesfor our consideration is that whether this Court can exercise Writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputed questionof facts about measurement carried out by the Respondent No. 3 to show howmuch area of the Petitioner’s land has been acquired for 4 lane widening ofNational Highway No.6 including the bypass under notification dated11.11.2011 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956(hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1956).5.On the face of the record it appears that originally one Mr. Ranawas holding land Gut No. 80 ad-measuring 01 H 30 R (130 R) situated atNavapur, Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. The original owner Mr. Rana sold60.70 R out of 130 R to one Mr. Kamlesh Nathulal Agrawal (i.e. 130 R – 60.70R=69.30 R). Accordingly, the mutation was recorded and said land was givenseparate Gut No. 80/2 to the extent of 60.70 R land and remaining land 69. 30R remained with the original owner. Subsequently, original owner Mr. Ranaagain sold 40 R land out of remaining land 69.30 R to Mr. RameshchandraDhansuklal Rana as such mutation entry was recorded to the extent of 40 Rland and given separate Gut No. 80/1/B. As a result, the original owner Mr. ( 4 ) wp 14435.21Rana was in possession of only 29.30 R land from Gut No. 80 which wasrenumbered as Gut No. 80/1/. Α6. Thereafter, Shri Rameshchandra Dhansuklal Rana purchased landAdm. 40 R out of Gut No. 80/1/B, which he later on sold entire 40 R land toJitendra Murari Agrawal and Rajesh Puranmal Agrawal (the Petitioner Nos. 1 &2 in earlier W.P. No. 7498/2020). As such, Petitioners in W.P. No. 7498/2020became the owner of Gut No. 80/1/B. Thereafter, in the year 2019, ShriJitendra Murari Agrawal and Shri Rajesh Puranmal Agrawal sold 22 R land outof 40 R land from Gut No. 80/1/B to the present Petitioner namely ManishOmprakash Agrawal. Therefore, 18 R land remained with Jitendra & Puranmalout of 40 R from Gut No. 80/1/B and this land has not been affected forwidening of the road. 7.It is contention of the Petitioner that remaining land Adm 29.30 Rfrom Gut No. 80/1/A was with the original owner Mr. Rana and after his saddemise, land admeasuring 29.30 R was allotted to the share of Shri SandeepSatish Rana and other 5 members from family of original owner. On 30thSeptember, 2020, the Petitioner namely Manish Agrawal purchased the land ad-measuring 19.30 R out of 29.30 R land under the registered Sale Deed.Subsequently, on 23rd December, 2020, the Petitioner again purchasedremaining 10 R land. ( 5 ) wp 14435.218.Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that theRespondent No. 2 issued a notification dated 11.11.2011 u/s 3A of NationalHighways Act, 1956, and propose to acquire the land specified in the scheduleof notification for the purpose of construction 4 lane of National Highway No. 6including the bypass. The affected stretches of land are between K.M. 606-000and 649-000 in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra, near the Maharashtra-Gujarat Border. After issuance of said notification, following series ofnotifications were published as under: - 1st - 3D on 14.09.2013,2nd - 3D on 10.09.2014.3rd - 3A on 30.10.2015 & 3rd 3D on 28.10.2016.4th - 3A 08.06.2017 & 4th 3D on 09.01.2018.5th - 3A on 05.07.2017 & 5th 3D on 24.05.2018. 6th 3A 23.08.2018 & 6th 3D on 21.12.2018. Therefore, he submits that due to above notifications, the RespondentNo. 2 National Highway authorities were not sure as to which land was toacquire and to what extent lands are affected. 9.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as per 3DNotification dated 21.12.2018, an area of 200 square meters from Gut No.80/1/B was affected for four lane widening of National Highway No. 6(hereinafter to be referred as N. H. No. 6.) Though, in said notification 200 ( 6 ) wp 14435.21square meters of land is shown to be acquired, however, more than 200 squaremeters of land of Petitioner was acquired. Therefore, Petitioner submitted anapplication requesting for joint measurement of land. In response of saidapplication, Respondent No. 1 issued an order on 07.04.2017 and directed theDeputy Superintendent of Land Record (hereinafter to be referred as Dy. S.L.R.)to measure the land and to submit the Report. Respondent No. 3 measured theland on 18.01.2019 in pursuance of order dated 07.04.2017 in the presence ofa representative from the National Highway PIU, Dhule and submitted it’s jointmeasurement report on 15.06.2019, stating therein that, the land admeasuring1900 sq. meter from Survey No. 80/1/A and land admeasuring 2200 sq. meterfrom survey No. 80/1/B has been affected. Thereafter, on 06.09.2019,Respondent No. 1 forwarded the proposal and requested to Respondent No. 2for issuance of notification u/s 3A and initiate the proceeding for acquisitionfor additional area in addition to the proposal dated 06.09.2019, RespondentNo. 1 forwarded proposal draft u/s 3A. However, Respondent No. 2 raisedqueries on said joint report and requested Respondent No. 1 for rectification.Accordingly, Respondent No.1 rectified those queries and submitted a freshreport with a request for issuance of notification u/s 3A. Following the receiptof report dated 29.12.2019, Respondent No. 2 again for second time raisedqueries vide letter dated 17.06.2020. These queries were again for the secondtime resolved by Respondent No.1 vide report dated 27.07.2020. After ( 7 ) wp 14435.21receiving this clarification, Respondent No.1 sent a letter dated 17.08.2020,rectifying the queries and requested Respondent No. 2 to issue a Notificationu/s 3A of the Act, 1956. On perusal of Exh “G” rectification of query it isevident that the queries pertain to six different field Gut numbers mentioned inthe letter, but it does not disclose about land of the Petitioner. After receivingsaid clarification, Respondent No.1 sent a letter dated 17.08.2020, rectifyingthe queries and requested Respondent No. 2 to issue a notification u/s 3A ofthe Act,1956. 10.It is further canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that despiteabove said report submitted by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 deputed it’srepresentatives and Respondent No.3 - Dy. SLR, Navapur for revisit at land inquestion for verification of the actual position, however, the Respondent Nos. 2& 3 visited at the spot behind his back and without notice to the Petitioner aswell as without carrying out any measurement, submitted a report. Therefore,the Project Director of NHAI-PIU, Dhule, issued an impugned order on19.10.2020 and refused to issue notification u/s 3A of the Act, 1956 to theextent of land belonging to the Petitioner.11.Being dissatisfied by order dated 19.10.2020, the vendors ofPetitioner had filed W.P. No. 7498/2020 before this Court. On 29.07.2021, theCo-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order and directed the Ld. ( 8 ) wp 14435.21Collector Nandurbar to monitor the measurement in presence of all thelitigating parties/title holders/persons having interests in the property. So also,any land over and above the details set out in ‘X-1’ is to be acquired, theprocedure laid down in law shall also be followed.12.On 04.08.2021, the Petitioner submitted an application before theLd. Collector, Nandurbar and raised objection that, Shri Mhatre, the officer ofNational Highway has dumped sand/soft stone (Murum) and otherconstruction material at the site and started construction work. Therefore, thePetitioner requested the Collector to investigate the matter in accordance withthe order passed in W.P. No. 7498/2020 and to measure the land.13.On 24.08.2021, the Ld. Collector Nandurbar passed an order,directing the Respondent No. 3 to conduct a joint measurement of thespecified land and directed all interested parties to participate for jointmeasurement. On 01.09.2021, the Respondent No. 3 issued notices to allinterested parties, including NHAI for joint measurement of Gut No. 80/1/Aand 80/1/B on 15.09.2021, but schedule of joint measurement wasrescheduled due to administrative work. Accordingly, schedule formeasurement fixed on 23.09.2021 and measurement took place in presence ofShri Jitendra Murarilal Agrawal, Shri. Rajendra Bhamre (Talathi, Navapur),Shri. Raghunath Niranjan Agrawal (the Petitioner’s representative) and Shri. ( 9 ) wp 14435.21Nagesh Motilal Chaudhari and NHAI’s representative, Shri. Yashodeep Patil,but he refused to sign the measurement sheet.14.Mr. D.S. Bagul, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner, submits that the jointmeasurement was carried out as per order of the Collector, Nandurbar clearlyreveals that the Petitioner’s land ad-measuring 1900 square meters from GutNo. 80/1/A and land ad-measuring 2200 square meters from Gut No. 80/1/Bare affected in four lane widening of the road. The said measurement report isbased on measurement sheet submitted to Respondent No. 1 on 08.10.2021.However, Respondent No. 1 on the instructions of Respondent No. 2 calledRespondent No. 3 and orally informed to submit fresh joint measurementreport considering sanctioned layout map of Gut No. 80/2. Therefore,Respondent No. 3 again submitted fresh joint measurement report and shownearlier measurement sheet dated 23.09.2021 tallies with the freshmeasurement report/sheet. Therefore, action on part of the Respondents isillegal and bad in law, hence, the same needs to be quashed and set aside.15.To buttress these submissions the learned counsel for the Petitionerrelied on case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. V/s. State of H. P.; (2022) 7 S.C.C.508, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, nobody can bedeprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law and