Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned legality of notification dated 11.3.13 issued by the Government of India under sub -section (1) of Section 3C of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") and notification dated 25.11.13 issued under Section 3D of the Act of 1956, for acquisition of the land for the purpose of widening and improvement of existing single lane into two lanes with the pave shoulder of section Nimbi Jodha (near Ladnu) at k.m.00 -Degana -Merta City at k.m. 139 -900 of National Highway No. 458 in District Nagaur of the State of Rajasthan.
(2.) PRECISELY , the case of the petitioners is that when the existing road at village Tilanes was constructed, a portion of each of khasras over which the same was taken through, was acquired from the agriculturists substantially depriving them from their land and now instead of widening the existing road, completely abandoning it, a new bypass is sought to be constructed, whereby the farmers of the village including the petitioners herein, shall stand deprived of their livelihood. It is submitted that 100 meters wide road is already existing and therefore, for widening the road, only 100 meters wide strip is required whereas, for providing bypass, the land for 200 meters wide road will have to be acquired. It is submitted that the position regarding the location of the buildings on the roadside in the villages Tilanes and Idwa is not distinguishable from the positions of the buildings on the road side in other villages namely, Paliyes, Baggad and Arniala falling on the road proposed to be constructed and therefore, the action of the respondents in isolating the villages Tilanes and Idwa for giving a bypass is ex facie discriminatory. It is submitted that the existing road of NH 458 is passing through the habitation of all these villages, in both the sides whereof, shops, residential houses and government buildings such as school and hospitals and Gram Panchayat buildings are situated. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, such buildings are found located in Baggad and Arniyala in the length of one and half kilometers whereas in villages Tilanes, Idwa and Paliyes, such buildings are located in the length of less than a kilometer on the both side of the road and therefore, there is no justification as to why the villages Tilanes, Idwa and Paliyes have been picked up for giving a bypass while dropping the proposal for construction of the bypass in the village Baggad. It is further submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner -Habu Ram against the proposed acquisition have been rejected by the competent authority without consideration vide order dated 4.9.13. It is submitted that no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner while passing the order, rejecting the objections. On the other hand, the respondent -National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has taken the stand that the plan in question for widening of NH 458 is designed to cater the heavy traffic plan in the stretch (0.000 -139.900 KM) in the District Nagaur has been prepared after detail survey of project road alignment taking into consideration the possibility of the bypasses and realignment. It is submitted that the bypass has been proposed wherever improvement of existing road is not possible. It is submitted that the existing road of village Tilanes has been encroached upon with time and there are residential settlements very close to carries way varying between 3 meter to 5 meter from the road edge on both sides. There is one temple also on the right side at road edge in the village center. That apart, the village is having pond on the west site and big catchment on the east side of the road. The pond is only source of potable water of the village. The road geometry is also very poor inside the settlement and therefore, a bypass is required. Similar are the reasons assigned for proposing the bypass at village -Idwa. It is submitted that opting any of the option is absolutely prerogative of the respondents which is based upon sound reasons and technical issues which cannot be questioned by anybody for his own convenience. It is submitted that as mentioned in the Detailed Project Report (DPR), total 8 bypasses and 1 realignment were proposed on NH 458 (KM 0.000 - KM 139.900), however, due to delay in finalisation of Baggad bypass, acquisition proceedings could not be started but now, entire alignment work of Baggad bypass is completed and on receipt of the approval, acquisition proceedings would be carried out for construction of the Baggad bypass. The categorical stand of the respondent is that the proposal of Baggad bypass has not been cancelled by NHAI and thus, the averments made by the petitioners in this regard, are incorrect. It is submitted that to avoid large scale demolition of properties and to minimise the R & R and social impact, the bypasses have been proposed, which are based on detailed studies done by the experts of the field. It is submitted that upon receiving objections, notices for hearing to the concerned objectors and interested persons were issued. It is submitted that the allegations regarding non consideration of objections or deviating from the prescribed procedure, are absolutely false.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners reiterating the stand taken in the writ petitions, submitted that regarding the position of the location of the buildings along the existing road in the villages Tilanes, Idwa and Paliyes and other villages namely, Arniyala and Baggad is not different and thus, the action of the respondents in proposing the bypass for the villages Tilanes and Idwa and dropping the bypass originally proposed for village -Baggad is ex facie discriminatory. Learned counsel submitted that the village -Baggad in respect whereof, bypass proposed stands withdrawn is the biggest village amongst the village falling on the route in question. Learned counsel submitted that NH 458 is passing through the habitation of all these villages in both sides whereof, shops, residential houses, temples and government buildings are situated and thus, there is absolutely no justification for proposing the bypass for the villages Tilanes and Idwa and dropping the proposal of giving bypass for village Baggad. Learned counsel submitted that the averments made by the petitioners in this regard have not been specifically denied by the respondent and there is only a bald denial. Learned counsel submitted that the villages similarly situated should have been treated similarly and the respondents cannot be permitted to pick and choose by creating artificial distinctions. Learned counsel submitted that there is no plausible reason for proposing the bypass by isolating the villages Tilanes and Idwa and consciously dropping the proposal for bypass in village Baggad without there being any distinguishing feature. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Hari Ram & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.", : AIR 2010 SC (Suppl) 709. Learned counsel submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners against the proposed acquisition have been rejected by the competent authority without application of mind solely relying upon the observations made by M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats, in the reply to the objections. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the competent authority deciding the objections must reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including objection raised by the land owner and thus, the rejection of the objections by the competent authority in perfunctory manner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, are ex facie violative of principles of natural justice. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Union of India & Ors. v. Shiv Raj & Ors.", : AIR 2014 SC, 2242. Learned counsel submitted that the bypasses have been proposed by manipulating the things to suit the vested interest.;