Sachin Kumar & Anr. v. National Highway Authority of India & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu Senior, Advocate with Mr.Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to notification dated 26.2.2010 issued under Section 3- A of the National Highway Act, 1956 (in short, the Act). Further prayer is to quash order dated 9.6.2010, vide which objections filed by the petitioner to the acquisition of their land, were rejected. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had purchased the land, in dispute, after issuance of the notification under Section 3-A of the Act, vide sale deeds dated 23.4.2010. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that before issuance of the notification mentioned above, for the construction of foot over bridge, the land was proposed to be acquired at KM 36.710 vide notification dated

26.2.2010. That notification was not pressed. However, thereafter, Civil Writ Petition No.11301 of 2010 2 subsequent notification, as mentioned above was issued to acquire land owned by the petitioners. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that despite objections raised no finding has been given as to why the land proposed to be acquired earlier has been abandoned. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner that by passing a non-speaking order, objections have been rejected without meeting the points raised by the petitioners. petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioners. After hearing counsel for the It is not in dispute that the petitioners had purchased the property, in dispute after issuance of the notification under Section 3-A of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 698, has held that a right holder who has purchased the land after issuance of the notification of acquisition, is not entitled to raise any objection. It was observed as under:- “3. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana [JT] 1995 (8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 334] and Sneh Prabha vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) SCC 426], this Court had held the alienation made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4 (1), do not bind either the State Government or the beneficiary Civil Writ Petition No.11301 of 2010 3 for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 3 SCC 124], this Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. V.K. Kangan [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8) SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Hari Om Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687]; Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494] and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC 394] wherein this Court had held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [JT 1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him to question the legality of the notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the Collector under Section 11. 4. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the property covered by the notification under Section 4(1) after it was published and, therefore, it’s title is a void title. It has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings much less the award. The Division Bench of the High Court has exhaustively reviewed the case law to negate the claim of the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow through its Chairman Similar is the opinion of the Civil Writ Petition No.11301 of 2010 4 and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow, (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 124. rejecting objections filed by the petitioners it was specifically stated as Be that as it may, vide order under:- “Sh.Manoj Kumar, Manager & Sh.S.K.Bansal, Technical Expert from NHAI were also present. They were asked to visit the spot and see that there are any Pacca constructions which may not effect the resident. As per direction in the presence of the Objectors and his Advocate, Sh.Manoj Kumar Garg, Manager (T) & Sh.S.K. Bansal (TA) visited the site alongwith Tehsildar, Gurgaon, Patwari concerned and Sh.Jitender Goel, JEN, Haryana PWD. They presented the report as well as layout plan prepared by the JE, PWD, B&R with following observations:-

1. There is boundary wall on either sides of the site which is just a temporary construction.

2. Two nos. of old temporary shed are within the area to be acquired.

3. Two nos old temporary shops are within the area to be acquired.

4. A construction was going on which seems to be started after publication of 3A.

5. As such there is no residential construction having ‘A’ class construction in the land area to be acquired.” Civil Writ Petition No.11301 of 2010 5 Contention of counsel for the petitioners that construction exists at the spot is belied from facts on the record. We have seen copies of the sale deeds vide which land was purchased by the petitioners. In the sale deeds, there is no mention of any construction over the land purchased by the petitioners. Furthermore, photographs put on record by the petitioners clearly indicate that the construction is new one. It is also coming out from the records that the site was inspected in the presence of counsel for the petitioners and it was found that the construction was going on at the spot. It appears that with a view to frustrate acquisition of the land, after purchase, the petitioners started raising construction at the spot. So far as question regarding feasibility of the foot over bridge is concerned, the authorities are the best judge, they are to see where it is needed. The Court cannot issue any direction in that regard. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge

30.06.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge