Savita Garg vs Union Of India & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

As against the acquisition proceedings, which has initiated in pursuance to issuance of notification under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956, the owners of the property whose land is proposed to be acquired has got a right to file an objection under Section 3(C)(1).

It is incumbent on the Competent Authority under the Act to consider the application, hear the objector providing him an opportunity of hearing and then take a decision on the objection as such on the exclusive merits of the objection.

In the case at hand the grievance of the petitioner is that his property was made subject matter of acquisition by issuance of a notification by the respondent under Section 3A, by virtue of which the petitioner's plot no. 432 lying in Village Lalpur, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar, having an area of 0.3180 hectares was made as a subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1956.

His contention was in the objection preferred under Section 3(C) was that as far as the property in question is concerned, since there exists a petrol pump and the conversion has already taken place under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has already taken place, thus, the effect of these aspects were required to be considered while determining the quantum of compensation by the competent authority. In relation thereto, he has filed his objection under Section 3(C)(1) of the Act of 1956.

The grievance of the petitioner is that while considering the objection preferred by the petitioner the competent authority had passed the impugned order on 09.05.2014, whereby, while deciding the composite objections preferred by the different tenure holders which were clubbed together and decided by a common order. The petitioner had made a reference to the findings which has been recorded in relation to the objection of the petitioner as referred in the head Gram Lalpur, Tehsil, Kichcha, which is quoted hereunder:

"ग्राम लालपुर तहसील किच्छा से कुल 6 आपत्तियां प्राप्त की गई जिसमें कृष्णलाल पुत्र श्री मेला राम के अनुसार उनकी भूमि खसरा संख्या 31 मि0 में से खसरा संख्या 31 ख की भूमि कितनी अर्जित की जा रही उसका खुलासा नहीं किया गया है एवं उनकी भूमि का उपयोग आवासीय प्रयोग में किया जा रहा है के संबंध में भुगतान किये जाने स पहले हल्का पटवारी की रिपोर्ट ली जानी है जिससे स्पष्ट हो जायेगा कि कितनी भूमि प्रार्थी की भू अर्जन से प्रभावित हो रही है। शमी अहमद पुत्र श्री तौफीक अहमद द्वारा दी गई आपत्ति के अनुसार उनकी भूमि जो कि सरकार द्वारा दी गई है के अतिरिक्त और कोई भूमि उनके पास नहीं है जिसे भू अर्जन से मुक्त रखा जाये इसी क्रम में रईस अहमद पुत्र श्री तौफीक अहमद एवं श्री सहीद अहमद पुत्र श्री तौफीसक अहमद द्वारा भी इसी प्रकार की आपत्ति दी गई है इसके बारे में अध्याप्त निकाय उपमहाप्रबंधक (तकनीकी) एवं परियोजना निदेशक, भा0रा0रा0 प्राधिकरण के आख्या के अनुसार साध्ययता अध्ययन एव विस्तृत परियोजना प्रतिवेदन के आधार पर संरेखण किया गया है। परियोजना का अनुमोदन भारत सरकार की पी0पी0पी0ए0सी0 कमेटी द्वारा किया गया है जिससे संरेखण में आनेवाले भूखण्ड को अर्जन से मुक्त नहीं रखा जा सकता है। संजीव कुमार पुत्र श्री केशर लाल के आपत्ति के अनुसार खसरा संख्या 435 की भूमि का माननीय परगनाधिकारी रूद्रपुर द्वारा भूमि के उपयोग का परिवर्तन किया जा चुका है संज्ञान में लाया गया है जिसके साक्ष्य में उनके द्वारा कोई अभिलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये हैं। श्रीमती सविता गर्ग पत्नी श्री विजय भूषण गर्ग द्वारा की गई आपत्ति के अनुसार उनकी भूमि खसरा संख्या 432 मि0 पर पेट्रोल पम्प स्थित है एवं यह भूमि धारा 143 के तहत गैर कृषि घोषित की जा चुकी है के साक्ष्य में अभिलेख प्रस्तुत किये गये। जिस पर नियमानुसार अग्रिम कार्यवाही की जानी है। इसी प्रकार श्री मनीष गोयल एवं श्रीमती अंजू गोयल की आपत्ति के अनुसार खाता संख्या 171 खसरा संख्या 180क मि0, 181क, 183 व 175 मि0 की भूमि का प्रकार दिनांक 23.08.2011 से बदल कर गैर कृषि हो चुका है जिसके साक्ष्य स्वरूप खतौनी की नकल प्रस्तुत की गई है। जिसमें अग्रिम कार्यवाही नियमानुसार की जानी है, तद्परांत आपत्ति निस्तारित की जाती है।"

He submits that a very cursory finding has been recorded by the competent authority in relation to the land of the petitioner, which was proposed to be acquired for which he has filed the objection and that too even without hearing the objection of the petitioner, after providing him an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 3(C) of the Act, which reads as under:

"[3C. Hearing of objections.-

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)."

This Court is of the view that since the ground taken by the petitioner in the writ petition while giving challenge to the impugned order, is that she was entitled to be heard and an appropriate hearing was not provided to her by the competent authority, it would rather than the order so far it relates to the petitioner to be vitiated and violative of provisions of Section 3(C)(2).

To this argument the learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the order may not have recorded the finding in relation to the petitioner as per his expectation but so far as it relates to the averments made in the objection it has considered the objections taken by the petitioner, but apparently it seems that the competent authority had made a reference to the objection and the reference would itself lead to a conclusion that the petitioner was heard.

This argument as extended by the learned counsel for the respondent may not rationally be accepted in view of the intent expressed by sub-section (2) of Section 3 (C) of the Act, where it entails that the competent authority while deciding the objection would set out the grounds as raised in the objection and the competent authority would give an opportunity of hearing to the objector either in person or through a legal practitioner and thereafter a complete hearing, the competent authority has to take a decision on the objection thus preferred by the objector.

Considering the impugned order and the findings as recorded therein, in relation to the petitioner's objection, this Court is of the view that it does not satisfy the norms and the parameters of hearing as settled by sub-section (2) of Section 3 (C) of the Act.

In that view of the matter and from that limited perspective only, the impugned order so far it relates to the consideration of objection of the petitioner preferred under Section 3(C)(1) would stand quashed and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to reconsider the objection of the petitioner under Section 3(C)(1) in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 3(C)(2) and take a fresh decision on the objection of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.