POST FOR ORDERS ON 9'“ May. 2008 I I I Sdl- Satish K. Agnihsr Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI5$ARH AT BILA$PUR WRIT PETITION [C] No.1708/2007 ti PETITIONER Vallabh Bahi Pafel Cooperafive 5ocie1‘y Lfd., Raipur. Vs REsEONDE&TS S'mfe of Chhattisgarh & ofhers HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VuHabh Bhai Patel Cooperative Socie'l'y L'rd. (A regis+ered Cooperm‘ivc Sociefy bearing reg‘ No.RPR- 21 d'rd. 22.12.1962) having ifs regisfered office nf 33, Vallabh Colany Ring Road No.1, Raipur Through President Harbans Singh ’Chawla, 33, Vallabh Colony, Ring Road No.1, Raipur (C6) Vs 1. Sfafe of Chhu'H’isgarh, Secre'l'ary Through: (Nodal Officer), Pubiic Works Department (Na‘rionai Highway & Bridge Zone), D.K.$. Bhnwan, Ruipur (CG) . The Project Director, Nationai Highways Authority of India, (Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways) House No. 40, Sector-2, ' Geetanjali Nagnr Rcipur (C6) 3. Collector, Rnipur (C.6.) 4. Executive Engineer, P.W.D.‘, National Highway Division, Division No.1, Pension Bada, Raipur (C6) 5. Sub Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsil Office Raipur (C6) Present: Mr. Prafulla Bhcrat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.5. Kachchawaha, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1, 3 to 5. Mr. Mohammed Ali, Advocate for respondent No.2. E l i g _ . F ,_g of) W.P.[C] No.1708 OF 2007 I @ O R D E R (Passed on L] May, 2008) Dhirendra Mishra J 1) The maffer- is listed for fur'rher hearing, however, Mr. Ali, learned counse! for respondent No.2 submifs fhai’ refurn has already been filed on behalf of The respondenf No.2, The peiilioner has also filed rejoinder and as such, The pleadings are complefe and +herefore, considering the fac‘r fhaf sfay order is operafive againsl’ fhe cons‘rrucfion of road, fhe ma'Her be heard finally. 2) Wi'rh The consenT of The parTies, The maTTer is finally heard. 3) The peTiTioner has filed The insTanT peTiTion under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India praying for following reliefs:- " 7.1. To call for The records of The case for kind perusal of This Hon'ble CourT. 7.2. To issue an appropriaTe wriT or order and declare ThaT The impugned acTion of The respondenTs is bad in law. 7.3. To issue an appropriaTe wriT or order and direcT The respondenT from implemenTing Their illegal and arbiTrary decision. 7.4. To issue an appropriaTe wriT or order and direcT The respondenT noT To change The alignmenT of The exisTing road. 7.5. Any oTher relief deemed fiT in The facTs and circumsTances of The case may also be granTed." 4) Grievance of The peTiTioner is ThaT The peTiTioner socieTy afTer purchasing The land menTioned in kishTbandi—khaToni of Anne‘xure P-1 in The year 1962 and afTer geTTing necessary approvals from The Town d CounTry Planning deparTmenT as l . Ci l.‘ i r x v igx. per Annexure P-2 developed a housing socie‘fy. Members of the socie‘ty consfrucfed their houses affer due approval and are residing penceful!y since fhen. 5) Respondenfs acquired fhe land of #he pefifioner society under the reievanf provisions of Naiional Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') in the year 1971 for construction of ‘Nationol Highway No.6’. However. the respondents, without issuing any notice under Sections 3A. 3C, 3D of the Act of 1956 and without publication of notice, on the pretext of constructing four lanes rood, hove conducted survey of the iond and are contemplating to shift the alignment of road 20 feet towards western side which would lead to demolition of certain houses of the petitioner society. The four lanes road proposed by the respondents can be constructed over the existing road without any violence with the properties of the petitioner Society members. 6) Respondent No.2 in his reply has categorically stated that the project of converting the existing national highway into four lanes national highway is part of ‘Golden Quadrilateral Project (6Q). Respondent authorities have been entrusted with the task of implementing National Highway Development Project. The project has already been approved by the Central Government. The land required for the purpose of National Highway Authority of India is a public purpose within the meaning of Section 13 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. It has been decided as a matter of policy that land acquisition for right of way of a minimum of 60 meters is to be done for all projects under National Highway Development Project and where right of way is less than 60 meters, the land acquisition for acquiring 60 meters may be initiated. The Government of India on the basis of report of the competent authority has already issued gazette notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act of 1956' on 1.‘E. i. i" W 20.8.2007. No'rifica'l’ion was duly published in two Hindi dailies pubiished from fhe Iocniify. The pefifioners have obfained interim order on 7.2.2008 by suppressing ‘l'he above fact Acquisition is for +he public purpose i.e. for conversion of existing road To four lanes road, fhe shif'r in cen'rrnl line of fhe road is nafural, fhe some hos been proposed afier de‘railed survey and if cannof be quesiioned by lhe pefi‘l‘ioner by way of filing wrif pefi'l'ion. 7) In fhe rejoinder fhe petitioner has further submitted that the act of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner is arbitrary, as the land belonging to the petitioner was earlier acquired in the year 1971 in the name of construction of national highway. As per information obtained from respondent No.2 under the Right to Information Act, breadth of the road from Tatibandh to Telibandha would be only 54 meters, whereas, the Public Works Department had already acquired 60 meters land for the above purpose. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9) From the documents available on record and which has not been disputed by the petitioner, it is evident that notification under Section 3A (1) of the Actvof 1956 was issued by the Union of India on 20.8.2007 for acquisition of the land for widening of existing national highway and converting into four lanes road. Substance of the above notice was also published in two newspapers of the area and objections were invited. However, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner society or any aggrieved member of the society filed any objection after notification of Annexure R2/3. With the passage of time the respondents have taken a policy decision of converting the existing national highway into 4/6 lanes road as a part of Golden Quadrilateral Project (6Q) and as per specification 5 acquisi‘rion of minimum of 60 me‘l'er-s land for righf of way is +0 be done for a” fhe projecfs under Nu‘rionul Highway Development Programme. 10)So far as The objec‘rion of fhe pe‘l’ifioner regarding alignmenf of the nafional highway is concerned, fhe oiignmenf of exis‘ring nu‘rionai highway is fixed offer defaiied survey by The fechnicai exper‘rs for ‘rhe whole sirefch of highway under consirucfion and fhe ques'rion of alignmenf of highway cannot be gone info by fhe Court as 'i’he some requires Technical exper'i’ise and knowledge. i1)The argumem fhaf four lanes nai’ional highway can be consfrucfed on The land already acquired by The res’pondenTs in The year 1971 is concerned, iT is for The experTs and engineers of The highway auThoriTies To Take a policy decision wiTh respecT To The widening of land necessary for consTrucTion of four lanes road and The same cannoT be quesTioned by The owners whose lands are proposed To be acquired for The above purpose. 12)5ince The iniTial noTificaTi'on issued under SecTion 3A (1) of The AcT of 1956 has noT been quesTioned by The peTiTioner, iT is noT open To The peTiTioner To challenge The validiTy of The above noTificaTion. 13) In The resulT, for The aforesaid discussion, There is no meriT in The insTanT peTiTion, The same deserves To be dismissed and iT is accordingly dismissed. 4V4 l Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge Roshanl- “aim-w i