National Highways Act, 1956 — Ss. 3-A, 3-C, 3-D, 3-G — Acquisition of land — Publication of notification — Requirement of publication in two local newspapers — No requirement of minimum circulation — Publication in Praja Sakthi (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) — Validity upheld.
Land acquisition — Allegation of mala fides — Bald and vague allegations — Neighbouring landowners not impleaded — Officers not impleaded eo nomine — No supporting material — Plea rejected.
Judicial review — National Highway projects — Limited scope — Courts not to interfere with alignment or feasibility unless action is ex facie illegal or tainted by proved mala fides.
Public purpose — Widening of National Highway — Public interest prevails over private interest.
(Paras 14–18, 18–27, 29–30)
FACTS (As recorded by the Court)
-
The four writ petitions were disposed of by a Common Order as the issues involved were similar. (Para 1)
-
The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 5664 & 42024 of 2022 owned land to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.Nos.77/1E-2B & 77/1D-2C, Kothapallayam Village, Renigunta Mandal.
The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 35081 & 42025 of 2022 owned land to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.194/5B/2, R. Mallavaram Village, Renigunta Mandal. (Para 2) -
The grievance was that the respondent authorities laid road through the said lands without notification under Section 3-A and publication under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956, pursuant to earlier notifications dated 18-06-2018 and 20-12-2018, which did not include the petitioners’ lands. (Para 2)
-
In W.P. Nos. 42024 & 42025 of 2022, challenge was also made to the public notice dated 20-12-2022 under Section 3-G(3) & (4) on the ground that no valid acquisition preceded the same. (Para 3)
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS
-
The petitioners pleaded that their lands were deliberately excluded from the 2018 notifications as they were not required, yet road was laid through them to protect adjacent landowners whose lands were already notified. (Paras 4–5)
-
They contended that:
-
No valid notification under Section 3-A or declaration under Section 3-D existed;
-
Publication of the 2022 notification in Praja Sakthi newspaper was invalid due to low circulation;
-
They were deprived of the right to file objections under Section 3-C. (Paras 5–6, 9)
-
-
Allegations of mala fides were raised, asserting that acquisition was intended to benefit neighbouring landowners. (Paras 4, 9)
RESPONDENTS’ STAND
-
The respondents contended that:
-
Valid Section 3-A notification dated 03-11-2022 and Section 3-D declaration dated 15-12-2022 were issued;
-
Substance of the notification was published in Praja Sakthi (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) on 06-12-2022;
-
Petitioners did not file objections under Section 3-C;
-
Acquisition was for public purpose, i.e., widening of National Highway. (Paras 7, 10–12)
-
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COURT
-
Whether the notifications are unsustainable for non-compliance with the procedure under the National Highways Act?
-
Whether the acquisition is vitiated by mala fides? (Para 13)
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Issue No.1 — Validity of Notifications (Paras 14–17)
-
The Court examined Section 3-A(3) of the National Highways Act and held that the statute requires publication of the substance of notification in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language. (Paras 14–16)
-
The Court found that:
-
Publication in Praja Sakthi (Telugu) and The Hindu (English) satisfied the statutory mandate;
-
The Act does not prescribe minimum circulation for newspapers. (Paras 16–17)
-
The contention that earlier notification was published in Sakshi with wider circulation was held to be irrelevant. (Para 17)
-
Accordingly, the challenge to Section 3-A and 3-D notifications on this ground was rejected. (Para 17)
Issue No.2 — Mala fides (Paras 18–27)
-
The Court held that allegations of mala fides were vague and bald, unsupported by material particulars. (Para 18)
-
The petitioners failed to:
-
Implead neighbouring landowners;
-
Implead officers eo nomine;
-
Plead collusion with supporting facts. (Para 18)
-
The Court distinguished State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh and Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd., noting that those cases involved specific pleadings and factual foundations, unlike the present case. (Paras 19–22)
-
Relying on Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd., Ajit Kumar Nag, and Nandlal Jaiswal, the Court reiterated that:
-
Heavy burden lies on the person alleging mala fides;
-
Courts cannot conduct roving enquiries on bald assertions;
-
Persons against whom mala fides are alleged must be impleaded. (Paras 23–27)
-
Issue No.2 was answered against the petitioners. (Para 27)
PUBLIC PURPOSE & LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW
-
The Court noted that the counter-affidavit clearly stated that the lands were required for public purpose, which remained un-rebutted. (Para 28)
-
Relying on Kushala Shetty, the Court held that:
-
NHAI is a professionally managed expert body;
-
Courts are not equipped to decide highway alignment or feasibility;
-
Judicial review is limited to cases of ex facie illegality or proved mala fides. (Para 29)
-
The Court reiterated that public interest prevails over private interest. (Para 30)
FINAL ORDER
-
The petitioners were held not entitled to the reliefs sought.
-
All the writ petitions were dismissed. (Para 31)
RATIO DECIDENDI
Publication of the substance of a Section 3-A notification in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language, satisfies the statutory requirement under the National Highways Act, irrespective of circulation strength; allegations of mala fides in land acquisition must be supported by specific pleadings, impleadment of concerned persons, and cogent material, failing which courts will not interfere in acquisition for public purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment