Touch Stone Finance Leasing and Investment Ltd. vs The Union of India and Others

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner had substantial land near the National Highway. For expanding the National Highway, notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was issued by the Central Government. Petitioner immediately filed his objections stating that by acquiring his land, what would be left to him would be a very small useless land and, as such, authorities should acquire the whole land and compensate him. The second objection was that in the notification, the land was classified as agricultural. He urged that there had been a videography which showed that that area, being a major intersection, was commercially being exploited all around. There was a Five Star Hotel immediately contiguous to the petitioner''s land. None of these have been considered and ignoring the same, Section 3-D declaration was made stating that no objections had been filed. Petitioner had been moving all authorities but no one is ready to hear him. It is submitted by Shri K.D. Chatterjee that compensation is being distributed but only because petitioner objected, he has not been compensated much less considering that the land was commercial land. The compensation is being calculated in a pick and choose manner showing it to be agricultural land. In my view, the whole procedure, as adopted, suffers from fundamental mistake. Section 3-A(1) talks of intention to acquire. Opposing this intention, objection is filed and has to be considered in terms of Section 3-C whereafter declaration in terms of Section 3-D has to be made. I am surprised, in the notification under Section 3-D, it has been stated that no objection was filed against the notification issued under Section 3-A(1). However, upon declaration being issued in terms of Section 3-D, the property vested in the Government. That chapter is closed. Now, the only question that survives is with regard to determination of compensation. This is dealt with under Section 3-G of the Act. For determining the compensation, the proceedings have to be initiated by issuance of public notice in two'' newspapers as contemplated by Section 3-G(3). Regrettably, this has yet to be done. This notification in newspapers is a sine qua non for initiating compensation proceedings. It is only after this newspaper publication that the proceeding, to determine compensation and right to file objections, arises. Petitioner''s claim, as noted above, is that this is a cross section of Highways and is fully commercially exploited. In the cadastral survey and/or the revisional survey, it may have noted as agricultural land but that is not final and determinative. What exists on the day of notification under Section 3-A(1) is what is to be found for calculating compensation. Revenue records can only be looked into if there is no other evidence brought on record.

Thus, in my view, it is open to the petitioner to make a proper representation before the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya in terms of Section 3-G which has to be adjudicated upon by the District Land Acquisition Officer and then, taking into consideration all materials available, he has to determine not only the nature of land but the amount of compensation that would be payable. Needless to say that this adjudication is a quasi judicial adjudication, the order has to be a speaking order taking into consideration all facts and contentions raised by the objector.

Let it be noted that Article 300-A of the Constitution is still not being repealed. Right to hold property is still a constitutional right which could only be taken away by procedure established by law and not contrary to the law.

Thus, I have no option but to direct the competent authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Gaya to reconsider the matter of compensation in accordance with law, as indicated above within a period of three months from today. With these observations and directions, this application stands disposed of.