- (1.) THE petitioners are five industrial units located at 7 -8 KM Stone on Jind -Rohtak road (National Highway No.71). They seek quashing of notifications dated 15th June, 2012 and 8th January, 2013 issued under Sections 3 -A(1) & 3 -D(i) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Annexures P4 & P10) vide which their land measuring approximately 500 sq.yards, 400 sq.yards, 250 sq.yards, 380 sq.yards and 330 sq.yards, respectively along with other lands, have been acquired for building (widening/four -laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of NH -71.
(2.) THE fact that the petitioners are the functional manufacturing industries duly registered with different Departments and have been set up after obtaining requisite permissions or No Objection Certificates etc., and are located on National Highway No.71 are not in dispute. The petitioners have also not controverted the fact that the strip of land including theirs, has been acquired essentially for the purpose of widening and four -laning of the abovementioned National Highway.
(3.) THE petitioners are, however, aggrieved by the impugned acquisition for more than one reason. Their foremost contention is that they shall have to demolish a part of their construction and uproot or shift the electrical installations due to the acquisition of their land and it would cause losses to the tune of lacs of rupees. The petitioners also contend that the respondents ought to have acquired the agricultural land on their opposite side to meet with the need of widening of National Highway as it would have saved the petitioners from the above -mentioned losses. The third contention is that though the Land Acquisition Collector favourably recommended their objections yet the same were mechanically rejected by the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). It is also the petitioners' grievance that a private expert agency was hired by NHAI to conduct the Survey who did not follow the Manual of Instructions (Annexure P5) prescribed by NHAI. According to the petitioners, the Manual of Instructions prescribes 45 mtr. width for the four -laning but the respondents have accumulated 60 mtr. land which is needed for six -laning only. The entire acquisition process, the petitioners, thus, urge is vitiated in law. Respondent No.2 the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak has filed his written statement maintaining that the land has been acquired as per the plan submitted by NHAI and according to which the land acquired on the petitioners' side is 271/2 ft. only while on the other side of the road, the width of the acquired land is 1041/2 ft. He has explained that the site plan was prepared by NHAI as per its suitability and technicalities and that he has not changed the alignment. It is also averred in para -(ix) of the reply that the LAC sent his detailed report to NHAI in which it was suggested "that land is lying vacant on the other side of factories, which can be used for construction of road".;