Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumarand Gupta And 20 Others vs National Highway Authority Of India And ... on 28 January, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Serial No.4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** Writ-C No.1279 of 2022 Pramod Kumar Gupta and others ...Petitioners Through : Mr. Ganesh Pandey, Advocate Vs. National Highways Authority of India and others ...Respondents Through : Mr. Neeraj Dube, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. A.K. Roy, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Coram HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, JUDGE ORDER
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated December 6, 2021 passed by the respondent No.2 vide which the objections filed by the petitioners against the acquisition of their land were rejected. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ-C No.23630 of 2020, titled as Pramod Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India and others, decided on January 20, 2021.
2. The ground raised for challenging the aforesaid order is that the term 'technical' was not defined in the impugned order. Further, the acquisition of the land for widening of the portion of the National Highway No.24 (Hapur-Moradabad Section), has been made one side of the road only whereas it should have been made both sides equally. In case, such process is followed, the petitioners will save part of their land from acquisition and will be able to earn their livelihood therefrom. It was further submitted that instead of widening of road, construction of elevated road on the spot may be more economical. Hence, the respondents should have explored that option as well.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the direction issued by this Court, the objections filed by the petitioners were considered. As alignment of road, construction and widening thereof are highly technical, especially with reference to National Highways, number of aspects are to be taken care of. The process of acquisition of the land is started only after examining all the aspects in detail. In the case in hand, all aspects were examined and the acquisition of the land was finalised. The idea being floated by the petitioners that acquisition of the land should be made on both sides of the road equally, is totally misconceived for the reason that in that situation much more persons than the present petitioners will be affected. It is not for the petitioners to decide whether existing road is to be widened or the elevated road is to be constructed. In any case, construction of elevated road is not as cheaper as is sought to be suggested by the petitioners. The widening of portion of National Highway No.24 is being made to take care of the increase in traffic on road and creation of infrastructure. Though land of several persons has been acquired in the process of widening of road, however, it is only few persons, who are making objections, otherwise majority of them have no objection.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present writ petition. As is apparent from the record, the notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on October 12, 2020. As informed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the notification under Section 3D of the Act was also issued on March 12, 2021. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ-C No.23630 of 2020. The same was disposed of on January 20, 2021. A perusal of the order dated January 20, 2021 passed by this Court shows that prayer made was for quashing of the notification under Section 3A of the Act. The only grievance raised therein was that the objections of the petitioners to the acquisition had not been considered. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of, directing the Authority concerned to consider the objections filed by the petitioners. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, instead of considering the objections himself, had referred the matter to the Project Director, National Highways Authority, Moradabad vide order dated February 12, 2021. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioners again filed Writ-C No.14166 of 2021, titled as Pramod Kumar Gupta and others v. National Highways Authority of India and others. The same was allowed on July 1, 2021 by setting aside the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated February 12, 2021, with direction to decide the objections afresh. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
5. The acquisition in hand is for the purpose of widening of the portion of National Highway No.24 (Hapur- Moradabad Section). A perusal of the impugned order shows that in terms of the direction issued by this Court, opinion of the expert was taken and it was found that the acquisition of land for widening of portion of National Highway No.24 is perfect when considered on its technical aspects. The argument raised by the petitioners that instead of widening of existing road, elevated road may be constructed, was also considered and rejected for the reason that the same will involve huge expenditure.
6. The direction issued by this Court in Writ-C No.14166 of 2021 filed by the petitioners was for consideration of their objections against the acquisition of their land. However, the Competent Authority found that before acquisition of the land for widening of the portion of National Highway No.24, all technical aspects were considered and it was found to be more feasible to acquire the land on one side of the road only. Even otherwise, acquisition of land for widening of an existing road on both sides of the road would disturb large number of persons as compared to one side. In any case, widening of road in the present case is to cater to the ever growing need of traffic on the road, to create infrastructure and check accidents. The petitioners are few of the land owners whose land has been acquired for widening of road. The project of the National Highways should not be put on hold on account of the grievance sought to be raised only by small set of affected persons. Through the action of the respondents for widening of National Highway No.24, the larger public interest will be served and the same will override the personal interest of the petitioners. It is well settled that whenever there is conflict between public interest and private interest, the former must prevail. In the case in hand, larger public interest certainly weighs in favour of creation of infrastructure even if there is some technical defect, though not.
7. It will be apt to note that the National Highways Authority of India is a professionally managed statutory body at the national level having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. Before construction of new highways or widening and developing the existing highways, detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relevant factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not equipped to comment upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project and whether a particular alignment is good or there can be better option. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time and again opined that projects of public importance should not be halted as the same would be against the larger public interest and the constitutional courts should weigh public interest vis-à-vis private interest, while exercising its discretion. The view could very well be gathered from the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported as AIR 1997 SC 1236, Pratibha Nema and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported as AIR 2003 SC 3140. The same view has been expressed by Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Alok Kotahwala and others, reported as AIR 2013 CC 754. Relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgments are reproduced hereunder:
i) Ramniklal N. Bhutta's case:
"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a Civil Suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceeding is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the Courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings." (sic) (emphasis supplied)
ii) Pratibha Nema's case:
"38. When no prejudice has been demonstrated nor could be reasonably inferred, it would be unjust and inappropriate to strike down the Notification under Section 4(1) on the basis of a nebulous plea, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Even assuming that there is some ambiguity in particularizing the public purpose and the possibility of doubt cannot be ruled out, the constitutional Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136 should not, as a matter of course, deal a lethal blow to the entire proceedings based on the theoretical or hypothetical grievance of the petitioner. It would be sound exercise of discretion to intervene when a real and substantial grievance is made out, the non-redressal of which would cause prejudice and injustice to the aggrieved party. Vagueness of the public purpose, especially, in a matter like this where it is possible to take two views, is not something which affects the jurisdiction and it would, therefore, be proper to bear in mind the considerations of prejudice and injustice."
iii) Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited's case:
"31. With respect to ecological balance, there has to be sustainable development and such projects of immense public importance cannot he halted. It is not the case that requisite permissions from the Central Government and the State Government have not been obtained, thus, objections were flimsy. In other petitions also pertaining to the same Project, this Court has held that such project of immense public importance should not be put to halt. Thus, flimsy and untenable objections were raised, which have been rightly rejected after due application of mind.
x x x x
48. On merits, we find the order of interim stay passed by the single Bench to be untenable, thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the same. Suffice it to observe that in such cases of public importance of Metro Rail Project, there should not be any interim stay, rather an effort should be made to decide the matter finally at an early date. Staying the land acquisition proceedings is not appropriate and would be against the larger public interest involved in such projects. Thus, relying upon the decision in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), we hold that in the matter of immense public importance like the present one, the power to grant interim stay under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in the normal course."
9. If considered in the light of the ennunciation of law as referred to above, in our opinion, the petitioners do not deserve any relief as widening of National Highway is a project of national importance and larger public interest. The challenge to the acquisition has been made by a small set of persons affected by acquisition. The project cannot be put on hold as any road is to be constructed as per alighment which cannot possibly be changed at one particular spot.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Prakash Padia, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Allahabad
28.01.2022
Rakesh/Kuldeep
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes