Bombay High Court
Babaso Rangrao Patil And Ors vs The Competent Authority Dy Collector ... on 12 April, 2024
Author: M. M. Sathaye
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:17033-DB 1 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1331 OF 2022 Babaso Rangrao Patil And Ors ....Petitioners V/S The Competent Authority Dy Collector Land Acquisition, Kolhapur And Ors ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2022 Manik Baburao Shinde And Ors .... Petitioners SNEHA V/S NITIN The Competent Authority Dy. Collector CHAVAN (land Acquisition), Kolhapur And Ors. ....Respondents Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.04.12 18:23:25 +0530 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3996 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30359 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16671 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION 1331 OF 2022 Tejaswini Rajendra Patil .. Applicant In the matter between: Babaso Rangrao Patil And Ors ....Petitioners V/S The Competent Authority Dy Collector (Land Acquisition), Kolhapur And Ors ....Respondents **** Mr. Surel Shah i/b Mr. Rahul Kasbekar for the Petitioners in both petitions. Sneha Chavan ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 2 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.docMr. Anil Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Singh a/w Ms.Heena Shaikh, Mr. Adarsh Vyas and Ms. Ruchita Verma i/b M.V.Kini& Co. for the Respondent No.2Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the State-Respondent **** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 5 APRIL 2024
Judgment (Per M. M. Sathaye J.) :
. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.Mehra, learned AGP for the State and Mr. Singh, learned SeniorAdvocate for Respondent No.2/National Highways Authority ofIndia.
2. Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2022 is filed seeking direction toRespondent/Authorities (Competent Authority/ Deputy Collector,Land Acquisition No.6, Kolhapur and National Highways Authorityof India) not to disturb possession of the Petitioners, 58 in number,over the subject matter lands, challenging the notifications dated 7December 2020, 25 March 2022, declaration that Respondent No.1Competent Authority has not followed the procedure under Section3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the said Act' for short) bynot affording personal hearing to the Petitioners, challenging theconsequential notifications under Section 3-D of the said Act,alternatively seeking direction to the Respondents to widen existing
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 3 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
State Highway (SH-194) instead of acquiring parallel lands of thePetitioners for the purpose of constructing National Highway No.
166.
3. Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2022 is filed by the Petitioners, 74in number, challenging the impugned notification dated 6 December2021, declaration that Respondent No.1 Competent Authority hasnot followed procedure under Section 3-C of the said Act by notaffording personal hearing to the Petitioners and therefore, alsochallenging consequential notification under Section 3-D of the saidAct, seeking direction to Respondents to scrupulously follow theprocess of law under Sections 3-A to 3-D of the said Act. ThePetitioners in this petition, by way of amendment have again prayedfor same reliefs in respect of notification of the same dated 6December 2021 issued in respect of another set of lands and seekingidentical declaration that in respect of this notification, theRespondent No.1 Competent Authority has not followed procedureunder Section 3-C of the said Act, by not affording personal hearingto the Petitioner and subsequently challenging the consequentialnotification under Section 3-D of the said Act.
4. Interim Application No. 30359 of 2022 is filed by onlyPetitioner No. 2 - Tejaswini Rajendra Patil, praying to amend WritPetition No. 1331 of 2022, in view of 3-D notification dated 2September 2022 and placing on record its copy along with copy of
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 4 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
objection raised by one of the affected persons, contending that forthe sake of convenience only one copy is annexed for the reference ofthe Court.
5. Interim Application No. 3996 of 2023 is filed by samePetitioner No.2 in WP No. 1331 of 2022 praying for followingreliefs.
"A) The present Interim Application may kindly be allowed.
B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint Court Commissioner in order to ascertain factual location regarding the construction of National Highway No. 166 which is being proposed to be constructed in the lands (Exhibit-F to the Petition) belonging to the Petitioners situated in villages Bhuye and Bhuyewadi in Taluka Karveer, District-Kolhapur in consonance with newly suggested and accepted alignment in meeting dated 13.02.2019, which alignment has been reiterated in the affidavit in reply, filed by the Respondent Authority dated 21.06.2022 in paras 4 to 7 & 12 to 14 and forms part of Section 3D notification no. 1332(A) dated 25.03.2022."
6. The above two Interim Applications are being considered anddisposed of together with above Writ Petitions.
7. The case of the Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions is sameexcept for lands involved covered in common notification. Forconvenience we are narrating the case in Writ Petition No. 1331 of2022. The Petitioners claim to be owners of various lands at villageBhuye, Bhuyewadi, Belgavi, Sagav, Karve, Bahirewadi, Yedenipani,
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 5 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
Pargaon, Devarde at Taluka Karveer, District-Kolhapur, of whichdetails such as survey number, area etc. are given in Exhibit-F to thepetition. The Petitioners contend that in the year 2017 a notificationwas issued under Section 3-A of the said Act thereby declaring theintention to acquire Petitioners' land. It is contended that there wasoutrage and large scale objection raised by the Petitioners due towhich the said notification was withdrawn and it was decided to onlyexpand existing said Highway instead of proposed plan of NationalHighway No. 166 (Ratnagiri-Nagpur National Highway). It iscontended that on 13 February 2019 a meeting was held in thepresence of local representative of the constituency and theconcerned member of Parliament recommended change of proposedalignment of State Highway. It is contended that the proposedchange in alignment was such that it saved the funds of the CentralGovernment and it would also save large number of highly fertileagricultural lands belonging to the Petitioners. It is contended thatNational Highways Authorities were directed to take necessaryaction for design of new alignment. It is contended that the minutesof the said meeting were communicated to the National HighwaysAuthority (Respondent No.2). It is contended that GrampanchayatBhuyewadi and Bhuye made representations to Respondent No.2that acquisition of Petitioners' lands should be carried out as per thenewly suggested directions and the existing State Highway bebroadened on both sides. It is contended that thereafter, anotification under Section 3-A of the said Act was issued on 7
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 6 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
December 2020 thereby declaring intention to acquire landsbelonging to the Petitioners without considering therecommendations and suggestions made. It is further contendedthat the Petitioners themselves through their respectiveGrampanchayats made representation to the Hon'ble CentralMinister for Road Development thereby expressing their displeasureand objections. A request was made to expand existing StateHighway on both sides. It is contended that these representationswere also forwarded to the concerned Ministers and representatives.It is further contended that pursuant to notification under Section 3-A, notification under Section 3-C of the said Act was issued callingfor objections which was published in local newspaper Pudhari on 4January 2021. It is contended that the Petitioners thereafter raisedtheir objections. It is contended that the sarpanch of the localGrampanchayat Bhuye and Bhuyewadi further made representationto the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development and PWD to cancelthe project of National Highway No. 166. It is contended that theconcerned member of Parliament also made communication to theCentral Minister of Road Transport and Highway suggestingexpansion of existing State Highway. It is further contended thatseveral representations were given. It is thereafter contended that anotice was issued to the Petitioners to remain present for hearing inthe office of Respondent No.1. A copy of the said notice dated 9November 2021 is annexed by the Petitioners themselves. It iscontended that the Petitioners made representation raising objection
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 7 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
for proposed plan of construction of National Highway No.166pointing out loss of Petitioners' lands, through one respectable localrepresentative. It is contended that the Petitioners appeared beforeRespondent No.1 (Competent Authority) and raised objection. Theobjection raised by Petitioner No.1 is annexed for ready reference. Itis contended that Respondent No.1 rejected the Petitioners'objection stating that acquisition of land, is necessary as proposed. Itis then contended that without measurement a notification underSection 3-D of the said Act was issued on 6 December 2021, therebydeclaring that the lands have vested in Central Government. It iscontended that in the notification dated 6 December 2021, the landsof the Petitioners have been excluded, but the officers of theRespondents are trying to take forcible possession without carryingout measurements.
8. This petition was amended in September 2022 addingfollowing averments. It is contended that now fresh notificationunder Section 3-A has been issued on 28 January 2022. It iscontended that pursuant to said notification, a public notice is issuedin daily 'Lokmat' on 15 February 2022 calling for objections. It isthen contended that the Petitioners have raised written objections. Itis contended that objections of all the Petitioners are same. It is thencontended that Respondent authorities have issued notices dated 9March 2022 to Petitioners under Section 3-C(1) of the said Actcalling upon them to remain present for hearing in the office of the
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 8 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
Competent Authority. It is contended that the Petitioners havereceived those notices on the day of hearing. It is contended that thePetitioners have appeared before Respondent No.1 (CompetentAuthority) on 11 March 2022 thereby raising their writtenobjections. It is contended that no personal hearing was given. Thewritten objection of Petitioner No.2 is annexed for ready reference.It is then contended that Respondent No.1 Competent Authorityagain rejected the objections without personal hearing and withoutmaking further inquiry. It is then contended that a notificationunder Section 3-D of the said Act was then published on 25 March2022 in daily Lokmat dated 16 June 2022 in which Petitioners' landshave been included. It is contended that procedure has not beenfollowed.
9. The Petitioners in companion Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2022have made similar averments. Only subject lands are different butcovered by same notification dated 7 December 2020. Rest of thecontentions are same.
10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Singh has invited our attentionto the affidavits-in-reply filed by the Project Director of the NationalHighways Authority in both petitions dated 9 May 2022. TheProject Director has contended at the outset that Petitioners havelegal remedy of challenging the award if the Petitioners are aggrievedby the same. It is contended that the concerned Land Acquisition
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 9 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
Officer (Competent Authority) has followed the procedure and allthe persons who have lost or are going to loose their lands were givenan opportunity of filing their objections and hearing. It is contendedthat Section 3-D notifications have already been issued and the landshave vested absolutely in the Central Government. It is contendedthat determination of amount payable as compensation underSection 3-G is already done and thereafter notice of possession afterdepositing the award amount with Competent Authority is issued. Itis contended that notice under Section 3-E of the said Act is servedupon the land loosers and time of 60 days is given to vacate andhandover the possession of the land to Competent Authority andtherefore, apprehension expressed by the Petitioners is not correct. Itis further contended that in case of some villages, through which theconcerned national highway is passing, the Competent Authority isin the process of declaration under Section 3-D and award is awaited.So far as the lands of the Petitioners are concerned, it is contendedthat the National Highway No. 166 passes through certain stretcheshaving sharp bends which are vulnerable from the traffic point ofview. It is submitted that feasibility study and preparation of detailproject has been carried out through DPR Consultant. It iscontended that the stretch is divided into 3 packages and pre-construction activities like land acquisition, preparation of estimatesfor utility shifting, forest clearance etc. are in advanced stage. It iscontended that the present alignment of the National Highway hasbeen approved by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. A
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 10 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
letter to that effect has been annexed to the affidavit in reply. It issubmitted that initially notification under Section 3-A was issued,however due to strong opposition of the local villagers, the jointmeasurement was not done and 3-A notification lapsed. It iscontended that local people approached the then Minister with theirgrievances. It is submitted that the public representatives and localpeople have objected the subject matter stretch of national highwaysince beginning. It is submitted that the concerned Minister of theState Government intervened and convened meetings to resolve theissue and accordingly, series of meetings were conducted on 30January 2018, 12 April 2018 and 13 February 2019 wherein localpeople, public representatives, National Highways Authority, PWDand revenue officials and DPR Consultant were present. Thealignment of road was broadly accepted and finalised in the saidmeeting. It is then submitted that the Project Consultant wasrequested to offer comments about suggestions/directions of thepeople's representative/Minister. The Project Consultant submittedits comments, comparative statements were given. It is submittedthat various project affected persons have already given consent forthe new suggested alignment. The Grampanchayat Bhuye hasinformed that although some persons are getting affected, theaffected peoples have been allotted plots by the Grampanchayat. It isfurther submitted that finally it is decided to follow the newlysuggested alignment. It is submitted that since the project affectedpeople, public representatives, representatives of National Highway
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 11 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
Authority, PWD and Revenue Officials agreed with the suggestedalignment, a letter dated 3 May 2019 was issued. It is furthersubmitted that regional office Mumbai recommended landacquisition proposal to the National Highway Authority for approvalof revised alignment. A copy of letter dated 19 June 2019 isproduced on record. It is further submitted that the alignment wasapproved by the National Highway Authority and a copy of letterdated 3 January 2020 issued by the National Highway Authority ofIndia is produced on record.
11. It is contended that although the Petitioners are seeking tochallenge the notifications on the ground that they are issuedwithout offering an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, it isbaseless because, the concerned Minister of the Government ofMaharashtra had intervened and meetings were convened andthereafter, the alignment as agreed in the meetings, have been takenforward.
12. It is contended that the expert team of Project Consultant hasprepared report about technical feasibility including alignment,considering topography, geometrical design of terrain, traffic study,black spot etc. It is submitted that once detail project report isprepared and approved, the same cannot be changed or modified. Itis submitted that new alignment of the National Highway isapproved after holding various meetings with local representatives
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 12 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
and State Minister and accordingly, notification under Section 3-Ahas been issued. The objections have been considered under Section3-C and notifications under 3-D are published. It is submitted thatnecessary notifications are published in local newspapers in Marathiand English language. A covering letter of the Land AcquisitionOfficer is produced on record, showing that various objections raisedby the Petitioners are sent to the Project Director for considerationway back in September 2021. The details of notices issued and jointmeasurements carried out as well as dates of hearing etc. aresummerised in paragraph nos. 17 and 18 of the affidavit in reply,which are reproduced below for ready reference.
"17. I say that the Joint Measurement (JMS) for Kolhapur Bypass was carried out by Dy. SLR, Kolhapur. The notice for the same had given to the land losers details are as follows -
Village Date of Date of Notice JMS carried issued out Shiye 13.08.2021 31.08.2021 Bhuye 13.08.2021 30.08.2021 17.11.2021 25.11.2021 17.01.2022 to 28.11.2021 24.01.2022 Bhuyewadi 13.08.2021 30.08.2021 17.11.2021 25.11.2021 17.01.2022 to 28.11.2021 24.01.2022 Nigave 13.08.2021 30.08.2021 Padawalwadi 13.08.2021 23.08.2021Sneha Chavan ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 13 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc Kerli 13.08.2021 27.08.2021 Jatharwadi 13.08.2021 30.08.2021 Kerle 13.08.2021 25.08.2021 Kushire 24.08.2021 30.08.2021 to 04.09.2021The number of trees, standing crops, structure, well, Boar etc. also counted in JMS.
18. I say that the under section 3C of the Act, the competent authority (CALA) gives hearing to the objections raised from the land losers in 3A Notification. The office of this Respondent had submitted replies on the objection to the CALA i.e. Dy. Collector, LAO No.6, Kolhapur. Details are as Follows -
Village Application Notice Date of Judgment received from land issued hearing for Date losers objection Shiye From 15.02.2022 09.03.2022 11.03.2022 to 08.03.2022 Bhuye From 15.02.2022 09.03.2022 11.03.2022 to 08.03.2022Bhuyewadi From 15.02.2022 09.03.2022 11.03.2022 to 08.03.2022
The competent authority (CALA) has rejected theobjections. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit - "E" is thecopies of replies."
13. It is therefore urged that the petitions should not beentertained at the behest of these handful of Petitioners. It issubmitted that since 3-D notifications have been issued, the lands
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 14 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
proposed to be taken/already taken, have vested in the CentralGovernment and therefore, no restraint order should be passed.
14. We have carefully considered the submission of both the sidesand perused record.
15. Perusal of the affidavits in reply filed by the NationalHighways Authority coupled with submissions made on its behalfindicates that, the sum and substance of its contention is that presentalignment of National Highway is finalised after due consultationwith representatives of the land loosers and after minuting thedecisions. Its case is that the present alignment is duly considered byHighways Authority and it is based on expert advise of the ProjectConsultant, considering various technical, financial and otheraspects. It is obvious that the proposed work of National Highwayaffecting the Petitioners, is being constructed in the larger interest ofpublic at large and it is for greater public good of infrastructuredevelopment. Respondent No.2 National Highways Authority hasplaced on record communications as stated above which indicate thatthe construction at the proposed alignment of the National Highwayis being carried out after considering various minutes of meetingswhich have taken place with the local villagers and theirrepresentatives and after taking due approvals from the authorities.But Petitioners insist that they were not heard before deciding theirobjections. There are hundreds of lands included in the impugned
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 15 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
notifications out of which handful of Petitioners are opposing wholeprocess.
16. From the aforesaid narration, it is overwhelmingly clear thatthese petitions are full of disputed questions of facts, which cannotbe adjudicated Petitioner wise, in the writ jurisdiction of this Courtunder the Article 226 of the Constitution of India; this is not a civilsuit. What is also clear is that these petitions are a desperate attemptby a handful of villagers who are not happy with the final decisiontaken after various meetings with their own representatives (Hon'bleMinisters etc). A bare perusal of the prayers shows that thesePetitioners wish to block the construction of a public project ofNational Highway.
17. The writ jurisdiction of this Court hearing challenge to landacquisition is not akin to appeal. This is not a case where no notice isgiven or where the award is vitiated by mala-fides, perversity orfraud. This is not even the case alleged. The case of the Petitionersas propounded, is not clearly emerging from the available record. Itis an admitted position that lands in different notifications issuedunder Section 3-A of the said Act are different. It is clear fromassertions in the reply affidavit paragraph 10 that the Award hasalready been declared under Section 3-G of the said Act for 15villages. The Project Director of the National Highways Authority ofIndia, in his affidavit-in-Reply has taken a clear stand that as per the
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 16 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
project consultant, given the technical constraints in the present case,it is not possible to change the alignment, meaning thereby thatavoiding the Petitioners' lands is not possible. There is no reason todisbelieve the stand taken by the Project Director based on theopinion of the project consultant.
18. Perusal of various notifications in local newspapers as discussedabove shows that due procedure is followed of declaration ofintention of acquisition under Section 3-A, calling for objection anddecision thereon under Section 3-C and declaration of vesting underSection 3-D of the said Act. For our satisfaction, we have perusedfollowing notifications viz. notifications dated 6 December 2021published in daily 'Pudhari' on 22 December 2021, notificationdated 25 March 2022 published on 16 June 2022 in daily 'Lokmat'and notification dated 2 September 2022 published in daily'Lokmat' on 19 September 2022. They all are issued under Section3-D of the said Act. For all these 3-D notifications there arecorresponding 3-A notifications. The said 3-D notificationsspecifically state that objections received by the Authorities havebeen considered and disallowed/rejected and lands vest inGovernment.
19. In such circ*mstances, we do not deem it appropriate to holdup the construction of a National highway which is a public project.It is settled position of law that the acquisitions under various Acts
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 17 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
including the said Act are compulsory by the operation of Law.There is no flagrant deviation from the procedure of law or malafides seen and therefore, impugned land acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered with.
20. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the petitionsand therefore the petitions and pending interim applications aredismissed. No order as to costs.
21. However, we direct that the Respondent/Authorities shalldisburse the amounts under the Award/s to the Petitioners subject todue verification of their entitlement and further subject to statutoryarbitration etc. as expeditiously as possible.
22. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeksextension of the ad-interim order, which is opposed by the learnedcounsel for the Respondent/National Highways Authority.Considering the reasoning given in the Judgment, we are notinclined to grant extension of time which will not only affect thepublic project, but will also escalate the cost. Even otherwise, thelearned counsel for the Respondent/National Highways Authoritystates that the procedure to be followed now is that the intimationwill be given to the Petitioners to hand over the possession to theRespondent. We expect the intimation would entail the time period
Sneha Chavan
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 18 wp 1331-22 wt 1535-22.doc
of 10 to 15 days. That would be sufficient protection to thePetitioners.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)Sneha Chavan ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2024 13:53:15 ::: 