C.W.P. No.18052 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18052 of 2009 Date of Decision:26.11.2009 M/s Sita Ram Kaushal Chand .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Present: Mr.Ravi Kant Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Hemant Gupta, J.(Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the acquisition of land for widening of National Highway by way of Notification dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P5) issued under section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) and the decision of the competent authority dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P11) declining the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 3-C of the Act. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Notification dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-5), the public purpose has not been specified. The real purpose for acquisition is for Truck Lay Bye whereas such purpose was not specified in the Notification. Since the acquisition of land is for a specific purpose i.e., for Truck Lay Bye, therefore, non-mentioning of the said public purpose does not satisfy the mandate of Section 3A of the Act which requires disclosure of public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. It is further argued C.W.P. No.18052 of 2009 2 that the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 3-C of the Act have been considered by relying upon the communication dated 10.11.2009 on behalf of an officer of the National Highways. A copy of such communication addressed to the Competent Authority was not given to the petitioner. Such procedure violates the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the reply by the National Highway authorities dated 21.10.2009 to the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 3-C of the Act was not supplied to the petitioner, which act is again violative of the principles of natural justice. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any merit in any of the argument raised by him. Notification dated 08.07.2009 specifies that the public purpose of acquisition of land is for building, widening, maintaining and operation of National Highway No.1 on the stretch from Kms. 86.000 to Kms 96.000. Such public purpose includes all ancillary services and works necessary and appurtenant to main purpose i.e. maintenance of National Highway, the provision of Truck Lay Bye. Truck Lay Bye is a facility for the truckers on the highway to rest, refresh and other facilities to such persons. It is not necessary that such Notification should include all ancillary and minute details of public purpose when the main purpose disclosed is of widening of the National Highway. The grievance of the petitioner in respect of communication dated 10.11.2009 is detailed in para 13 of the writ petition. The communication dated 10.11.2009 is, in fact, to inform the Competent Authority that there is an interim order passed by this Court staying dispossession of two of the other landowners. The said communication has nothing to do with the merits of the objections filed by the petitioner which were dealt with separately by the Competent Authority in the impugned order. In respect of the last argument, it is to be noticed that in the writ petition, there is no averment that the copy of the reply dated C.W.P. No.18052 of 2009 3 21.10.2009 was not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the argument raised has no factual basis. Lastly, it was further argued that the land of two adjoining landowners have been exempted from the acquisition on account of interim order of stay dispossession passed by this Court, therefore, no public purpose will be served as the land of the petitioners can be put to use. Therefore, the public purpose would not be served by acquiring the land of the petitioner. The said argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. The case of the other two landowners has not been dealt with while deciding the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 3-C of the Act for the reason that there is an interim order passed by this Court staying the dispossession of the said landowners. The stay granted in favour of the said landowners was in a writ petition filed in the year 1990. Such interim order cannot be a ground for quashing of the Notification intending to acquire the land of the petitioner. It is for the acquiring authorities to make use of the land acquired in furtherance of the stated object of acquisition and not for the petitioner to regulate and control the use of acquired land by the respondent-authorities. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in acquisition proceedings which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( Hemant Gupta ) Judge November 26, 2009 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge