Rajinder Singh v. UOI

respondents. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd and Anr Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy & Ors, 2011 (10) SCC

608. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that establishment of a petrol pump and other shops on the land in 7 WP(C) No. 1148/2025 question does not come within the purview of public purpose and that the land could have only been used for widening of the national highway as is clear from the language of the Notification issued by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act.

10. If we have a look at the Notification issued by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act in the present case, it provides that the land in question along with the other acquired land was to be acquired for widening of national highway upto its four laning meaning thereby the land was acquired for the public purpose. It is a settled law that the State can exercise its power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire land for public purpose notwithstanding the fact that rights of private parties might be interfered with. In other words, the private purpose must yield to the public purpose.

11. The question that is required to be determined in this case is as to whether establishment of a petrol pump and for that purpose leasing out a portion of the land in favour of a private individual would come within the purview of the ‘public purpose’.

12. If we have a look at the provisions contained in Section 16 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 8 WP(C) No. 1148/2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Act of 1988’), it provides that it shall be the function of the National Highways Authority of India to develop, maintain and manage the national highways and any other highways vested in or entrusted to it by the Government. Clause (f) of sub-section 2 of the said provision lays down that the authority for the discharge of its functions may provide such facilities and amenities for the users of the highways vested in it or entrusted to it as are in the opinion of the authority, necessary for the smooth flow of traffic on such highways.

13. From the above provision, it is clear that NHAI is obliged to develop, manage and maintain national highways vested in it and to construct wayside amenities near the national highways vested in it. As per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Transport, Government of India vide Circular No. RW/NH-34032/4/91 dated 03.04.1998, the Authority has to develop the following facilities on national highways: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Parking lots Snack bar/restaurant Toilets Rest rooms for short stay First aid Telephone booths Petrol pumps and minor repair shops (viii) Kiosks for sales of medicines/sanitary items 9 WP(C) No. 1148/2025 (ix) Land for future expansion.

14. Thus, it is clear that NHAI, in whom the Jammu-Srinagar national highway has been vested, is duty bound to provide wayside amenities of the type mentioned hereinabove. It is to be noted that in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1988, any land acquired by the National Highways Authority discharging its functions under the Act is deemed to be land needed for a public purpose. Since the NHAI, in terms of Section 16(2) (f) of the Act of 1988 is obliged to create wayside amenities, therefore, utilization of the land by NHAI for creating such amenities in the face of deeming provision of Section 13 of the Act becomes a public purpose. Thus, if the respondents No. 1 and 4 have decided to utilize the land, which has remained unused after the widening of the national highway for the purpose of establishment of petrol pump or for the purpose of creating any other wayside amenities, the same can, by no stretch of reasoning, be termed as a purpose other than public purpose.

15. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Royal Orchid Hotels (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation had acquired land for the purpose of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort near Bangalore Airport and 10 WP(C) No. 1148/2025 out of this acquired land, the Corporation had transferred a portion of the land to a real estate developer for the purpose of implementing group housing scheme. The Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that case came to the conclusion that the Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII of the Act. The Court further held that diversification of the purpose for which land was acquired under Section 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the power of eminent domain.

16. The facts of the instant case are entirely different. It is not a case where NHAI has transferred the land to a private person for a purpose entirely alien to the development of national highway but it is a case where NHAI has leased out the land to respondent No. 8 for the purpose of developing a wayside amenity, namely, establishment of a petrol pump, which is included in the development of national highway. Thus, the ratio laid down in M/s Royal Orchid Hotels (supra) is not applicable to the facts of instant case.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a right of pre-emption over the land in question is also without any substance because the Jammu 11 WP(C) No. 1148/2025 and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act stands already repealed and as such, the petitioner cannot claim any right on this basis, that too, by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.

18. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question could have been leased in his favour, if at all a petrol pump was to be established on spot. In this regard, it is to be noted that the land has been leased out to respondent No. 8 on the basis that he emerged as the highest bidder after participating in the tender process. The petitioner, without participating in the said process, cannot claim any right of allotment of the land in question.

19. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 11.09.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes Naresh Kumar 2025.09.11 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document