- (1.) 12/08.08.2012 I.A. Nos.1263/12 and 1264/12 placed today. In course of hearing, the parties also argued on merit of the case.
(2.) HEARD both the parties also on merit of the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification dated 02.06.2011 published in the Ranchi District Gazette No.31(Extraordinary) dated 04.06.2011, issued under sub-section of section 4 read with section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)Act,1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), whereby the land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Ranchi Ring Road. The grievance of the petitioner is that the acquisition of the land includes Plot no.335 of village-Garke,P.S. Namkum,Thana no.335. The petitioner-factory also situates over a portion of the said plot no.335. The petitioner's apprehension is that in future, the land over which factory is constructed may be acquired for the purpose of widening of Road and that will be highly prejudicial to the petitioner-factory. It has been further submitted that the respondents have option to shift the Road and construct the same to join with NH-33 Ranchi-Tata Road. The petitioner on that ground has made the said prayer. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that this writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of any merit and based on false and baseless allegation. Lands of Mouza-Garke, P.S. Namkum, Thana No.335, measuring a total area of 14.43 acres including an area of 1.28 acres, plot no.335 have been notified for acquisition for public purpose I.e. for construction of Ranchi Ring Road under the emergency provision of section 17(4) of the Act. The plan of the Road was for connecting the villages-Garke and Ulatu and for the purpose of easy access to N.H.33 for the residents of the said village and in larger public interest. Portion of Plot no.335 notified for acquisition, measuring 1.28 acres, is more than 200 feet away from the boundary of the petitioner-factory. The petitioner's claim is that the construction of the said Road would adversely affect the factory is wholly false and baseless. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the construction of Ring Road particularly when it is not going to be affected in anyway. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person and the writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner has claimed that the proposed construction of Road would adversely affect the factory, it has not made any specific statement that any portion of the land within the boundary of the factory is to be acquired by the impugned notification. The petitioner has also not disputed that the distance of the proposed Road is more than 200 feet from the boundary of the factory. The respondents have emphatically submitted that the said Road is being constructed for connecting two villages and for better connectivity, in the public interest. Considering the above, this Court does not find any ground made out to interfere with the Notification dated 02.06.2011 and grant relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed. I.A. Nos.1263/12 & 1264/12 consequently are rejected. The interim order dated 27.09.2011 stands vacated.;