Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar And Gupta And 20 Others vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 1 July, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14166 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar And Gupta And 20 Others Respondent :- National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Dube Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
We have heard Sri Ganesh Pandey for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.3; and Sri Neeraj Dube for the respondents 1 and 2.
Earlier, by filing Writ-C No.23630 of 2020, the petitioners had questioned a notification dated 12.10.2020 issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act on the ground that the proposed acquisition was for land located on only one side of the road of which widening was proposed. In the alternative, they had also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider their objection to the notification. That writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 20.01.2021 extracted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Petitioners by way of the present petition seek the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned notification dated 12.10.2020 issued by the respondent no.1 under Section 3A(1) of Road Transport and Highways (Vide Annexure No.1 to this writ petition);
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation/objection of the petitioners filed against impugned notification dated 12.10.2020 issued by the respondent no.1 (Vide Annexure No.3 to writ petition) forthwith or within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court."
At the outset an objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents in respect of the relief sought in the writ petition. It is urged that objection said to have been filed by the petitioners under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1956') is a joint objection whereas the provisions of Section 3-C of the Act, 1956 contemplates an individual objection by any person.
The submission though attractive but when tested it is borne out that objection has been raised though collective, within the time stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 3-C of the Act, 1956, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, that the petitioner shall file individual objection qua the notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act, 1956. Once such objection is filed the authority concern shall consider the same expeditiously. Though we are conscious of the fact that notification under Section 3-D (1) has since been issued, however the same, in the absence of any decision taken by the Authority on objection under Section 3-C which was kept pending, the objector cannot be deprived of their statutory rights.
In view whereof the petition is disposed of finally in above terms.
No costs."
Pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2021, by separate orders dated 12.02.2021, the objections of all the writ petitioners have been referred to the Project Director, National Highway Authority, Moradabad by observing that whether land for widening the National Highway No.24 is required towards one side only i.e. northern side is a technical issue which can appropriately be addressed by the Project Director, National Highway Authority, Moradabad.
Assailing the orders dated 12.02.2021, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 3-C objections to a notification under Section 3-A(1) are allowed or disallowed by competent authority under sub-section (2) of Section 3-C whose order attains finality under sub-section (3) of Section 3-C. A "competent authority" has been defined under sub-section 3(a) of the National Highways Act as any person or authority authorized by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification. According to the petitioners the third respondent is the competent authority therefore, he alone could decide the matter after calling for reports.
On a pointed query by the Court as to who is the competent authority, Sri Neeraj Dube, who represents the National Highways Authority, conceded that the competent authority would be the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Amroha (the third respondent) who has passed the impugned orders.
Once that is the position, we find no justification for the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Amroha (third respondent) to refer the matter to the Project Director, National Highways Authority, Moradabad on technical issues. The appropriate course for the third respondent would have been to call for report from the Project Director, National Highways Authority, Moradabad and take a decision thereon after consideration of all the relevant factors, in accordance with law.
In view of the above, we do not find any justification to keep the matter pending and invite counter affidavit when the matter can be disposed off on a legal issue noticed above.
The writ petition is therefore allowed to the extent indicated below.
The impugned orders dated 12.02.2021 are set aside with a direction upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Amroha-Competent Authority, Amroha (third respondent) to decide the objections of the writ petitioners on merits in compliance with the earlier direction dated 20.01.2021 in Writ-C No.23630 of 2020 and in accordance with law. We may clarify that for taking such decision, it would be open for the third respondent to call for reports from the Project Director or such technical agency as it may deem fit.
The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 1.7.2021 AKShukla/-