- (1.) This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners while challenging the notification dated 24.01.2014 issued under section 3A of the National Highways, 1956 (in brevity 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) and notification dated 23.01.2015 issued under section 3D of the Act of 1956, whereby the land mentioned in above notifications, which includes the lands of the petitioners, is sought to be acquired for the purpose of widening/construction of 2 lane paved shoulder road (Suratgarh to Sriganganagar) of the National Highway No.15 running from Km.173/000 to Km.248/650. The principal grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the construction of bypass from Km.238+000 to Km.248+600.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union of India issued a notification under section 3A of the Act of 1956 on 24.01.2014 declaring its intention to acquire the land mentioned in the notification for the purpose of widening/construction of 2 lane paved shoulder road on National Highway No.15 from Km.173/00 to Km.248/650 (Suratgarh to Sri Ganganagar) and invited objections from the persons concern. The said notification was published in local newspapers on 7 th and 8 th March, 2014.
(3.) Pursuant to that, the objections were filed on behalf of petitioners and other persons. The Land Acquisition Officer decided the said objections vide order dated 27.10.2014 and thereafter notification under section 3D of the Act of 1956 was issued on 23.01.2015. The said notification was published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 22.04.2015. Lands belonging to the petitioners falling under the above mentioned two notifications are situated in between Km.238+000 to Km.248+600 of Suratgarh to Sriganganagar Road where a bypass is proposed to be constructed. The petitioners are opposing acquisition of the land on the following grounds:- (I) That the land sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of bypass running from Km.238+000 to Km.248+600 on the Suratgarh to Sri Ganganagar Road has not been declared as National Highway under section 2 of the Act of 1956. It is argued that without declaration of stretch of road, where bypass is proposed to be constructed, as National Highway by issuing notice under section 2 of the Act of 1956, the respondents cannot acquire the land of the petitioners. It is contended that as the proposed bypass running from Km.238+000 to Km.248+600 has not been declared as National Highway under section 2 of the Act of 1956, the respondents have no authority to acquire the said land and the impugned notifications issued by it under sections 3A and 3D of the Act of 1956 are liable to be set aside. (II) That the Government of Rajasthan has assigned the work of preparation of feasibility report for widening/construction of 2 lane paved shoulder road from Suratgarh to Sriganganagar from Km.173/000 to Km.248/650 of National Highway No.15 to one Theme Engineering Services Private Ltd. The said company has submitted its feasibility report (Annex.15) to the State Government, wherein it has not proposed to construct any bypass from Km.238+000 to Km.248+600 and, therefore, there is no requirement of acquiring the land of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the said bypass. It is contended that a bypass constructed and maintained by GREF is already in existence, hence, no other bypass is needed. (III) That in the notifications issued by the respondents under sections 3A and 3D of the Act of 1956, the purpose for acquiring the land is mentioned as widening/construction of 2 lane paved shoulder road and in the said notifications, it has notwhere been mentioned that the land is required to be acquired for the purpose of construction of bypass. It is argued that when in the impugned notifications, it has not been mentioned that the land is required for the purpose of construction of bypass, then the land belonging to the petitioners cannot be acquired for the said purpose. It is submitted that the respondents cannot use the land for any other purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the notifications. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors., 2000 1 SCC 533 and Narpat Singh & Ors. vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr., 2002 4 SCC 666. (IV) That the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered and decided the objections filed by the petitioners in response to the notification issued under section 3A of the Act of 1956 in right perspective and decided the same in cursory manner. The order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is non-speaking order. (V) That before deciding the objections filed by the petitioners, the respondents have initiated the proceedings for issuance of the notification under section 3D of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, it can be assumed that the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the objections filed by the petitioners with a predetermined and biased mind. It is argued that though the objections of the petitioners were decided on 27.10.2014 but prior to that the respondents initiated the proceedings for issuance of the notification under section 3D of the Act of 1956 vide letter dated 30.09.2014 and this fact itself shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections and rejected the same in mechanical manner.;