IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2039 (M/S) of 2007 Bal Krishan, S/o Late Tota Ram, R/o Gram Paniyala, Patti- Raundarmoli, District Tehri Garhwal. ….Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Public Works Department, Dehradun, and others. …..Respondents Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Dated: - 09-04-2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State- respondents. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a following prayer: - (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 4-6-2007 issued by the respondent No.1 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (I-A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification issued U/s 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 2-11-2007. (II) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was the permanent resident of Village- Paniyala, Patti- Raundaramoli, District Tehri Garhwal and he was a Bhumidhar of plot No.2670 in Village Paniyala, District Tehri Garhwal. In the year 1990, the State Government sanctioned a Motor Road named as Lambgaon, Bichpur, Rawat Gaon, Paniyala Motor Marg and in this regard a notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the year 1992-93. After completing the 2 proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the work for construction of road was started in the year 1995 and in 2001 the Motor Road upto 10 Kms. i.e. upto Village of the petitioner was completed and after making necessary inspection, the Road Transport Officer had given the approval for plying the vehicles on the said road. The plot No. 2670 of the petitioner was not acquired under the said notification. Thereafter, the petitioner’s near relatives in collusion with the officials of the Public Works Department started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner plot No. 2670 and made several attempts to demolish the construction made over the said plot. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a suit of injunction against their close relatives and on 6-12-2003, the injunction was granted to the petitioner and their close relatives were restrained to interfere in respect of construction made over the plot No.2670. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submited his report before the court below and has stated in its report that in the Village of the petitioner i.e. Village of Paniyala, there is a turning point of the road over the plot No.2529 and thereafter the road turned towards the village Nagmentalakhal. The Advocate Commissioner has further stated that there is a house constructed over the plot No.2670. On 15-01-2004, the Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division Public Works Department, New Tehri issued a certificate that the road Lambgaon, Bichpur, Rawat Gaon, Paniyala have been completed upto 13 Kms and Road Transport Officer has also approved the aforesaid road for plying the vehicle. In pursuance of the order dated 7th September 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.49 of 2004 (M/B) Bal Krishan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, the urgency clause was invoked by the State Government in Public interest for acquisition of Plot No. 2670 of the petitioner. It reveals from the affidavit filed by the State as well as by the Commissioner report filed by Sri N.S. Pundir, Advocate that on both sides of plot No. 2670, the road is constructed i.e. link road is acquired but the land of the petitioner, which was acquired and on Plot No. 2670 the road is to be constructed. 3 The petitioner had also filed the Civil Suit for injunction as well as for damages and injunction were decreed by the Civil Court. By the impugned notification, the proceeding for acquisition in accordance with law has been initiated by the State Government. The petitioner was examined by the Court in Civil Suit No.35 of 2003. The statement of the petitioner has been annexed along with counter affidavit and in the last paragraph of the statement, the petitioner has stated himself that:- “;fn bl [ksr dk vf/kxzg.k gks tk;s rks eq>s bl ij jkLrk lMd dk fuekZ.k gksus ls dksbZ vkifRr ugh gS” Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the road had already been constructed and there is no need for further acquisition for link road and now again further by amending notification the land owned by the petitioner is being acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act by invoking urgency clause. Hence, there is no need to construct the link road and this road is being constructed to give benefits to some individual and it is not in a public interest. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit for injunction and damages and the suit for damages was decreed against the Government for payment of Rs. 23,000/- for damages of the crops. I have perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the State and also perused the Commissioner report. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no need to construct the link road and it is being constructed to give benefits to some individual and it is in public interest cannot be accepted because the petitioner himself has stated on oath in Civil Suit No. 35 of 2003 before the Civil Judge, which was filed by the petitioner himself that if his field is acquired for construction of the road, he has no objection to it. The proceeding was initiated in pursuance of the order dated 7th September 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 49 of 2004 (M/B) Bal Krishan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. The construction of the road is in public interest and the Government has not committed any illegality by invoking urgency clause. 4 Learned Additional C.S.C. for the State has also informed to the Court that the others farmers have gave consent to construct the road only the petitioner has objected for construction of road. The petitioner will get compensation of his plot No. 2670, which was acquired as per law prevailing. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned notification. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) M.K.