- (1.) THIS petition impugns the auction of State respondents. from demolishing and/or marking a Property as an obstruction to National Highway No.2.
(2.) THE petitioner submits that he purchased plot no. 768 and this plot is situate by the side of a bye pass road near Firozabad. THE this leads to the National Highway No. 2. A map has been submited byepass the writ petition showing that the byepass passes next to one side of the petitioner,s compound. On one aspect there is no issue that in 1971 the alignment of the road has been changed and it is now into the boundary the of the petitioner. THE petitioner admits that a new paper notice on behalf of the Public Work Department and the Government of India announced plans to alter the lay out of the highway as cost of rupees 5 crores. It is also accepted that on 14 August, 1994,, some employees of the Public Works Department came and inspected the site and after taking measurements have demaracated the area up to which the byepass of the National Highway will be expanded and this has been done with red paint. THE contention of the petitioner is that the demarcation line i. e. the road line made by she Public Works Department is. 15 feet into the lawn of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has received no notice of demolition, and when he made a request for it [he was informed that he has been given Public notice by announcement. For this reliance is placed in the matter of Dr. R. N. Chaudhary v. Municipal Board, Allahabad, 1977 (3) ALR 81. The contention of the petitioner is that between the National Highway Act, 1956 U. P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 and U. P. Municipalites Act, 1916 some one has to give notice to the petitioner before an expansion of the highway is undertaken. By this petition interference it sought that the mandamus be issued directing the respondent not to demolish the boundary wall of the petitioner. Any insufficiency of notice has been sufficiently had when the petitioner was made aware of the plans of the Public Works Department and the demarcation left by this Department for the benefit of the petitioner, it is not that the petitioner is unaware of the plans of the Government or its departments arrayed as respondents.
(3.) IN this regard when the petitioner purchased a property right next to a National Highway byepass he at every given time had taken the risk of an impending expansion and development plan of the highway authority. Now the petitioner is aware of the red line which demarcated the area A writ cannot issue on a risk: which the petitioner took to purchase a property which at all material times was subject to be affected by development plans for the highway.;