Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satish Chandra Gupta And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 16 January, 2018
Author: M.N.Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 882 / 2018
1. Satish Chandra Gupta Son of Shri Ramswroop Gupta, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o B 9, New Colony Near A.B.P. College, Kothun
Road, Lalsot, District Dausa.
2. Santosh Panchal Son of Shri Prahlad Panchal, R/o Village
Ajabpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
3. Girraj Prasad Sharma Son of Shri Sitaram Sharma, R/o Kuldeep
Nagar, Khatwa Road, Lalsot, District Dausa.
4. Lallu Prasad Jangir Son of Shri Harsahay Jangir, R/o Nehru
Colony Near Bal Udhan, Lalsot, District Dausa.
5. Mukesh Rawat Son of Shri Radheyshyam Rawat, R/o New
Colony Behind Shyam Mandir, Lalsot, District Dausa.
6. Kailash Prasad Mali Son of Shri Bhura Ram Mali, R/o Village
Sonanda, Diggi Road, Tehsil Lalost District Dausa.
7. Lallu Prasad Mali Son of Shri Sariya Mali, R/o Krashna Nagar,
Behind Jain Nashiya, Ward No 17, Lalsot, District Dausa.
8. Vinod Kumar Jhumaka Son of Shri Babu Lal Jhumaka, R/o
Village Chandsen, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
9. Harkesh Bairwa Son of Shri Chothmal Bairwa, R/o Village Rajoli
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
10. Lallu Prashad Sharma Son of Shri Surynarayan Sharma, R/o
Mishra Colony, Behind Shyam Mandir, Lalsot, District Dausa.
11. Narendra Son of Shri Badri Narayan Soni, R/o Village
Ramgarh, Panhwara, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa.
12. Giraj Prasad Agrawal Son of Shri Kalyan Prasad Agrawal, R/o
Near Prathviraj Garden, Lalsot, District Dausa.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the Government,
Department of PWD (National Highways), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. National Highways Authority of India, Head Office G-5 & 6,
Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110045 Through Its Member
Secretary.
(2 of 4)
[CW-882/2018]
4. Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer), National
Highway No. 11 B, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Order 16/01/2018 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notifications dated 12th April, 2016 and 17th April, 2017 published on 18th May, 2017.
A Notification for acquisition of land was issued under the National Highways Authority Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). While the matter was in process at the level of Land Acquisition Officer, certain persons tried to influence the government officers to reduce the width of the road. The wishes were accepted by the officers having no authority for it when matter was pending before the Land Acquisition Officer. The recommendations were made to reduce the width of the road by the Project Director followed by a decision at the level of the ACS and Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, State of Rajasthan. Those recommendations were withdrawn with a direction to pass an award as per Notification for acquisition of land. The withdrawal of earlier recommendations has been challenged by the petitioners.
(3 of 4) [CW-882/2018] Learned counsel for petitioners has made reference of various letters issued by the officers of National Highways Authority as well as State of Rajasthan after initiation of the proceedings for acquisition of the land. Learned counsel could not show authority of those officers under the Act of 1956 to interfere in the acquisition, that too, contrary to the provisions. If land holders had objections against acquisition of land, it could have been raised before the Land Acquisition Officer, who alone is competent to decide the objections. In the instant case, objections were taken up by the officers having no authority for it under the Act of 1956. It is only to bestow favour to certain interested persons, that recommendations were made unauthorisedly and pressure was put on the Land Acquisition Officer to reduce width of the road. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer was left with no option but to request those officers to send proposal indicating dimension of the road with relevant details. At that stage, officers withdrew their proposal to reduce the width of the road and has been challenged herein.
Learned counsel for petitioners could not show authority of any of the officers recommending reduction of width of the road. No cognizance can be taken on those recommendations in absence of authority with them once Notification for acquisition was issued. It is moreso when it was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1956 because decision on the objection can be taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on initiation of acquisition proceedings. This court cannot recognise recommendations of any officer not referred under the Act of 1956, rather, serious (4 of 4) [CW-882/2018] strictures need to be passed against those officers who made interference in the acquisition of the land after a Notification for it and tried to influence the Land Acquisition Officer. If any objection was to be raised by the land holders then they could have submitted it to the Land Acquisition Officer for his decision and after his order, the Government can take a call for further action in the matter. It cannot be in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1956. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner in reference to the recommendations of the officers for reduction of width of the road and withdrawal of their proposal. No interference can be made because earlier recommendation itself was non est. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Rajasthan as well as National Highways Authority with a direction to manage the affairs as per the Act of 1956 and not to interfere in the acquisition in violation of it otherwise necessary action against the officers concerned would be recommended and otherwise their conduct is deprecated.
(M.N.BHANDARI) J.
FRBOHRA