MAHESH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

CW/15650/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple petitioners from Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, who challenged the land acquisition notifications issued for the construction of National Highway No.158. The petitioners argued that the acquisition was based on erroneous land demarcation and that their objections were not considered. The respondents, including the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), defended the acquisition process, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and the public interest served by the highway. The court's decision focused on procedural compliance and the substantive public benefits of the highway project.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686301 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and Others, K.D Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: National Highways Act 1956
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BHANU BOHRA; POOSHAN; RAJAT CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: MANAS KHATRI
• Keywords: Land Acquisition; Legal Challenge; National Highway; Notification; Objection; Public Purpose
• Section: 3A; 3C; 3D

Judgement Text

"[2023:RJ-JD:32399] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15880/2021 1. Hiralal S/o Ramlal Teli, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 2. Manju Devi W/o Kanwarlal Swarnkar, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Bhim Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 3. Kaushalya Devi W/o Chandmal Choudhary, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Purani Parasoli, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 4. Chandi Devi W/o Ramlal Balai, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Darawat, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 5. Nanda S/o Nathu Gurjar, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 6. Bhagu S/o Nathu Gurjar, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit - Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub- Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. Dist. Haryana 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (2 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15650/2021 1. Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Shanker Lal Soni, Aged About 29 Years, Prem Nagar Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 2. Sunil Mewada S/o Ganesh Lal Mewada, Aged About 26 Years, Prem Nagar Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 3. Gopal Lal Sharma S/o Shriram Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Prem Nagar Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Gopal Lal S/o Madu Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Prem Nagar Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Kailashi Devi W/o Kanyalal Soni, Aged About 50 Years, Prem Nagar Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit - Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (3 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15674/2021 1. Jassu Devi W/o Ishwarlal Sahu, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 2. Badrudeen S/o Ibrahim, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 3. Ladulal S/o Ganesh Balai, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Rampal S/o Lehru Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Ashok Kumar S/o Lehru Lal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan- 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit - Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub- Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15680/2021 1. Ladi Devi W/o Madanlal Mali, Aged About 41 Years, Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (4 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 2. Jethmal S/o Devalal Babai, Aged About 55 Years, Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 3. Bhagu S/o Bhuralal Mali, Aged About 59 Years, Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Hariram S/o Barda Ram Atwal, Aged About 73 Years, Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Samu Devi W/o Jethmal Mali, Aged About 45 Years, Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit - Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub- Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15694/2021 1. Madani Devi W/o Hiralal Kumawat, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 2. Shambulal S/o Maganlal Soni, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Gandhi Market, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (5 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 3. Rameshwari Devi W/o Hagamilal Mewara, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Panchayat Samiti Road, Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Nirmala D/o Babulal Kamar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Beawar Road, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Chandmal Mewara S/o Madhulal Mewara, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 6. Kailash Chand S/o Shobhalal Ranka, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of R K Colony, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15744/2021 1. Sushila Devi W/o Gopal Lal Regar, Aged About 52 Years, Regar Mohalla, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 2. Jagroop S/o Hazari Kumawat, Aged About 60 Years, Sabalupra Darawat, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (6 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 3. Mohan S/o Hazari Bairwa, Aged About 55 Years, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 4. Madanlal S/o Gulabchand Regar, Aged About 55 Years, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 5. Rahul S/o Madanlal Regar, Aged About 25 Years, Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 6. Radhakishan Atwal S/o Laluram, Aged About 50 Years, Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 7. Hira S/o Ganesh, Aged About 80 Years, Gopalpura, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15878/2021 1. Ishwarlal Sahu S/o Gangram, Aged About 60 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 2. Gopal Lal S/o Gangaram, Aged About 57 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (7 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 3. Bhagirath S/o Gangaram, Aged About 53 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Sharwan Kumar S/o Gangraram, Aged About 50 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Mahaveer S/o Gangaram, Aged About 48 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 6. Ramprasad S/o Kalyan Kumawat, Aged About 42 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 7. Ramesh Chand S/o Kalyan Kumawat, Aged About 38 Years, Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon, Haryana Distt. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15909/2021 1. Baluram S/o Lalu Kumawat, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (8 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 2. Girdhari Lal S/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 3. Pinkesh S/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 4. Prakash Chandra S/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 5. Shanti Devi W/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 6. Suresh Chandra S/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 7. Mukesh Kumawat S/o Khemraj Kumawat, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). 8. Hardev S/o Narayan Kumawat, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Pratap Pura, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan-1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon, Haryana. [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (9 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17449/2021 1. Kailash Singh S/o Taju Rawat, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Sopura Tehsil Ashin District Bhilwara. 2. Sampat Singh S/o Taju Rawat, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Sopura Tehsil Ashin District Bhilwara. 3. Panna S/o Bheru Lal Bhil, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Sopura Tehsil Ashin District Bhilwara. 4. Eji W/o Gokal Bhil, Aged About 86 Years, Resident Of Sopura Tehsil Ashin District Bhilwara. 5. Ratan Singh S/o Nathu Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Sopura Tehsil Ashin District Bhilwara. 6. Manju Devi W/o Satyanarayan Chipa, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Lalit Kunj Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj). 7. Deepak Duggar S/o Ladu Lal Duggar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Dungaron Ki Pol, Ward No 6, Tehsil Asind District Bhilwara. 8. Bhavnesh Kumar S/o Gajmal Duggar, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Duggaron Ki Pol, Ward No 6, Tehsil Asind District Bhilwara. 9. Bardacheeta S/o Mandu Cheeta, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Sopura, Darawat, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 10. Bhanwar Singh S/o Hajari Singh Kheechi, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Sopura, Darawat, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 11. Prahlad Sharma S/o Ganesh Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Main Road, Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 12. Madan Lal S/o Shukha Ji Teli, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 13. Shiv Lal S/o Udyalal Jat, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (10 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 14. Ugar Singh S/o Narayan Singh Rajput, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 15. Jagdish Chandra Sharma S/o Mula Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Ward No 6, Main Road Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 16. Madan Lal S/o Badri Lal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Ward No 6, Main Road Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 17. Ratan Lal Lohar S/o Magilal Lohar, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of House No 12-1, D Sector, Azad Nagar, District Bhilwara. 18. Syamu Devi W/o Baluram Lohar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 19. Rameshwar Tiwari S/o Badri Tiwari, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara. 20. Bhanwarlal S/o Hajari Lohar, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Paldi, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan- 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. Project Director Cum Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit - Beawar, Manak Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer), Sub- Divisional Officer Asind, District Bhilwara. 4. Executive Engineer, National Highways Circle, Public Works Department, District Pali. 5. M/s Feedback Infrastructure Service Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Head Office At 15Th Floor, Tower 9B, Dlf Cyber City Phase 3 Gurgaon. 6. M/s Radhakrishan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Office At 302, Park Vaishali, Gautam Marg, Shivraj Niketan, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur. 7. District Collector Cum Arbitrator, District Bhilwara. ----Respondents [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (11 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra Mr. Pooshan Mr. Rajat Choudhary for Mr. D.S. Sodha HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order Reserved on : 03/10/2023 Pronounced on : 13/10/2023 1. Though the matters are listed in the ‘Orders Category’, but they are being heard today itself with the consent of counsel for both the parties. 2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the present batch of petitions, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15880/2021 are taken note of. 3. The present writ petition (SBCWP No.15880/2021) has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:- “1. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the notification dated 13.03.2020 (Annex.5) published in newspaper on 22.08.2020 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act 1956 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners with respect to land mentioned in paragraph number 10 and 11. 2. By an appropriate writ order or directions, notification dated. 29.10.2020 (Annex.6) published in newspaper on 07.11.2020 (Annex.6) issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act 1956 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners with respect to land mentioned in paragraph number 10 and 11. [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (12 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] 3. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the objection application dated. 28.10.2021 (Annex.10) preferred before the competent authority (Land Acquisition Authority, Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara) may kindly be allowed in toto and the acquisition may kindly be declared null and void qua the petitioners with respect to land mentioned in paragraph number 10 and 11. 4. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the objection application preferred by the petitioner may kindly be treated to be within limitation in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto (Civil) Writ No.3/2020) RE; Cognizance for Extension limitations and the objections may kindly be treated to be within limitation under Section 3C of the Act of National Highways Act, 1956 and be decided on merits in accordance with law.” 4. The facts apropos are that the petitioners, being the residents of Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara came to know about the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for construction of National Highway No.158 for Ras Beawar Asind Mandal area or part of the proposed National Highway beginning from 68.017 to 89.8 kilometers. Since the petitioners’ land falls adjacent to the National Highway, therefore, they came to know that their land is sought to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of development of National Highway and there was a public news to this effect. The petitioners obtained certified copies from the office of the respondents in order to ascertain the veracity, legality and validity of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). Upon receipt of certified copies from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara, the petitioners came to know about an objection application preferred by certain other persons, who were affected by the acquisition proceedings. In the representation dated 01.04.2021 (Annex.1), a [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (13 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] grievance was raised that the land acquisition plan, as notified in the notification dated 29.10.2020 (Annex.6), when compared with the revenue record, it showed certain differences which goes to the root of the cause and, therefore, it was requested in the said representation (Annex.1) to the competent authority to re- demarcate the land after making an inquiry into the matter. 5. The petitioners also received a copy of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) maintained for the Village Paldi, wherein, the Right Hand Side (RHS) and Left Hand Side (LHS) of the Right of Way sought to be acquired by the respondents measured about 15 meters from the centre of the road and when the same was compared with the approved map for the Village Paldi, it was found that the said land acquisition plan had serious errors. 6. Upon the representation (Annex.1), a Committee was constituted from the officials of the respondent NHAI who visited the site on 06.04.2021 and made analysis of the Right of Way and the sign of Total Station established by the respondent NHAI for preparation of land acquisition plan and then compared the same with the revenue map and the land sought to be acquired as per the Notification dated 29.10.2020 (Annex.6) under Section 3D of the Act of 1956. The araji Nos.3961 to 4206, which lie adjacent to the centre of the road to measure the Right of Way, was calculated and it was found that the same do not match in actuality with the land acquisition plan sought to be notified and approved by the respondent NHAI. In this way, the discrepancies were noticed by the respondents by way of inspection report, which was communicated with the observation of the respective officials to the Land Acquisition Officer Sub Divisional Officer, [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (14 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] Asind, District Bhilwara along with the communication made on 08.04.2021 (Annex.3). 7. Earlier also, a Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956 dated 29.06.2018 was issued by the respondents for construction of National Highway for Ras Beawar Asind Mandal in District Bhilwara but the said Notification was not given effect to. However, another Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956 was issued on 13.03.2020 pursuant to which Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 for declaration of acquisition was issued on 29.10.2020 (Annex.6). Since there was serious discrepancy, error, variation and differences in the Detailed Project Report prepared by the respondents when compared with the Land Acquisition Plan in actuality and also the report of Radhakrishan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the villagers preferred an objection application on 22.04.2021 (Annex.7) before the respondents while requesting the respondents to recall the Notification dated 29.10.2020 (Annex.6) and initiate the proceedings pursuant to the Notification dated 20.03.2020 afresh. The petitioners also preferred objections before the competent authority on 28.10.2021 (Annex.10) raising all their grievances but no heed was paid to them. 8. Hence, in these circumstances, since the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has raised objection after an inordinate delay as the Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act of 1956 was issued on 13.03.2020, which [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (15 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] was published on 22.08.2020 and the petitioner preferred the objections on 28.10.2021 by way of application (Annex.10), i.e. a delay of about 14 months and in support of his contention with regard to delay, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and Others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that once the Central Government is satisfied that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, then, it shall declare its intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in the official Gazette giving brief description of the land. The substance of the notification is also required to be published in two local newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. Any person interested in the land can file objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Such objection is required to be made to the Competent Authority in writing. Thereafter, the Competent Authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. This exercise is to be followed by an order of the Competent Authority either allowing or rejecting the objections. Where no objection is made to the Competent Authority in terms of Section 3C(1) or where the objections made by the interested persons have been disallowed, the Competent Authority is required to submit a report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a notification in the official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A(1). On publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 3D provides that where no declaration under Sub-section (1) is published within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any effect. By virtue of proviso to Section 3D(3), the period during which any action or proceeding taken in pursuance of notification issued under Section 3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year specified in Section 3D(3). 21. The plea of the Respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (16 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] bald assertion, the Respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the Appellants are tainted by mala fides. 24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullity the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.” 10. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 3A to 3I of the Act of 1956 for acquiring the land was strictly adhered and it is the petitioner who failed to object within the stipulated time of 21 days as mandated by Section 3 C of the Act of 1956. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent also raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and have concealed material fact that the work of construction of the road is almost complete and thus, they cannot [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (17 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] be permitted to raise objections at this stage. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.D Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein it was observed as under:- “28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play `hide and seek' or to `pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, \"the Court knows law but not facts\". 29. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and `clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with `soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.“ 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:- (a) that the respondents have committed error while preparing Land Acquisition Plan pursuant to the Detailed Project Report prepared by the Feedback Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. and [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (18 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] approved by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as is clear from perusal of the Notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act of 1956 and the land acquisition plan; (b) that the Committee appointed by the respondents visited the site on 06.04.2021 and noticed errors and recommended for demarcation of the land but the competent authority overlooked the said recommendation and did not show any attention towards the errors apparent on the facts of the record, which goes to the root of the controversy and violates the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (c) that the documents with regard to Village Paldi goes to show that the land sought to be acquired by the respondents has to be equally acquired on the right hand side and left hand side of the Right of Way, i.e. ascending lane but from a perusal of the map obtained for land acquisition plan for Village Paldi compared to the land sought to be acquired from the schedule of the Notification dated 29.10.2020 (Annex.6), an error is apparent on the record because on the left hand side and right hand side the variable proportion of the land has been acquired which shows that there is an error and the same does not require any expert opinion to analyze whether any illegality has been committed or not; (d) that the arbitrariness is writ large as from the perusal of the documents placed on record, it is apparent that in several cases, the parties situated exactly opposite to each other have variable amount of land sought to be acquired by the respondents and thereby, it has been causing inequality and unfairness in the acquisition proceedings; [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (19 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] (e) that the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be complete as the award for compensation has not been finalized and thus, the interference at this stage would not cause any prejudice to the respondents and the grievance of the petitioners can be addressed; and (f) that though the objections were to be filed within 21 days from the date of the Notification being published in the newspaper i.e., 22.08.2020, even then, in the light of the Notification, the guidelines, directions and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case In Re: For Extension of Limitation in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No.3/2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directd that the period beginning from 15.03.2020 ending on 31.12.2021 shall stand waived irrespective of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether the period of limitation is condonable or not. Hence, the petitioners have every right to file objections under Section 3C of the Act of 1956. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that: (a) the land acquisition proceedings has been undertaken by the respondents after following due procedures laid down under Section 3A to 3I of the Act of 1956, the aforementioned Ssections contains the comprehensive scheme of land acquisition and the mandates were strictly adhered by the respondent. (b) Section 3C of the Act of 1956 contains the provision for objections and it mandates that the objection shall be filed within 21 days of the notification, which the petitioners have failed to do so as the Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956 was [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (20 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] published on 22.08.2020 and the petitioners filed objections on 28.10.2021 (Annex.6). (c) The DPR, which is the detailed project report consist of various documents like Executive Summary, Traffic Report, Hydrology Report, Inventory, pavement and condition survey, sub soil investigations, plan and profile survey, detailed drawings, Engineering design, Land Acquisition Plan (LAP), geometric improvements etc. and thus, after taking into consideration various aspects, such DPR is prepared by the experts and cannot be said to be erroneous. Whenever a road is to be upgraded, centre line of the existing road cannot be taken as the centre line of proposed road because of availability of land in sadak khasra and engineering design. If it is done, then it would be almost impossible to upgrade existing road and there will be no geometric improvement in the existing road except for widening. (d) The NHAI/MoRTH is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways and comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance, thus, the action plan prepared cannot be said to be faulted with. (e) A Committee of Revenue Officers and Technical Officers of MoRTH, PIU, Beawar after receiving the complaint visited the site on 06.4.2021 and found that the demarcation of Right of Way done by the contractor at CH 70/900 to 71/100 was not in accordance with the Land Acquisition Plan, which was to be corrected by the Committee as per the Notification published under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 and as per the approved LAP, [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (21 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] however, the same could not be done at the site due to misbehaviour and threatenings of the residents therein. (f) There is no rule of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, according to which in urban area for the upgradation of National Highways, centre line of existing road shall have to be kept as the centre line for future upgradation of the road. As per the policy guidelines for land acquisition dated 10.5.2018 by MoRTH, para-3 specifically said that for the purpose of project implementation, the agencies shall undertake additional land acquisition on one side of an existing road to the extent feasible for expansion of existing road to next level of configurations. The relevant part of para No.3 of the guidelines dated 10.05.2018 reads as under:- “3. Accordingly, in continuation of the Circular of even number dated February 26, 2018 issued with regard to alignment of NHs, it has been decided that the project implementation agencies shall undertake additional land acquisition on one side of an existing road to the extent feasible for expansion of existing roads to next level of configurations. It may also be noted that the acquisition side shall be decided based on the intensity of the existing utilities and trees (following overall cost savings principle) and such side may change from one stretch to another stretch depending upon the most optimal alignment. … …” (g) The LAP for instant project was not finalized in 2015, rather it was finalised in 2018 initially (based on which 3-A(1) Notification under the NH Act, 1956 dated 29.06.2018 was issued in Official Gazette. This LAP was subsequently changed in December, 2019 due to change in Engineering design and based on the updated LAP, 3A(1) Notification dated 13.03.2020 was issued. As per the earlier plan, CH 70/900 to 71/550, which was [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (22 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] less wide road strip was to be acquired as only 100 Mtr wide road was to be made. However, there were changes in Engineering design in Asind town and it was decided by MoRTH to make a Vehicular Under Pass (VUP) at CH 71/530 and service road on both side of main carriageway from CH 70/800 to 71/550 and, thus, now 30 Mtr wide road strip is required. Accordingly, LAP was changed to acquire 30 Mtr wide road strips. From the observation of new LAP, it can be seen that the new LAP has more radius of curve at CH 70/900 as well as it ensures maximum use of PWD Sadak Khasra, which is encroached at various places from CH 71/000 to 71/500 in the town and thus minimum land is acquired. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. As per the provision laid down under Section 3A of the Act of 1956, the Central Government upon satisfaction that for public purpose any land is required, may declare its intention to acquire such land and the respondents duly issued Notification under Section 3A on 13.3.2020, which was published in the newspapers on 22.08.2020 and in the present case, undoubtedly, the Notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 has been issued for construction of a National Highway for Ras Bewara Asind Mandal area between 68.017 to 89.8 kilometers, which is a public interest project. Section 3A of the Act of 1956 reads as under:- “3A. Power to acquire land, etc.—(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (23 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. (3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.” 16. As per the provisions laid down under Section 3C of the Act of 1956 within a period of 21 days from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 3A(1) any person interested in the land may object to the use of land for the purpose mentioned in that Sub-Section and admittedly the petitioners after a delay of about 14 months filed objections on 28.10.2021. For the delay, no exemption is mentioned under Section 3C of the Act of 1956. The period of 21 days prescribed under Section 3C of the Act of 1956 is a mandatory period and the delay cannot be condoned. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. Section 3C of the Act of 1956 reads as under:- “3C. Hearing of objections.— (1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. (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, it 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 [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (24 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1.961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final.” 17. From the specific submissions as well as perusal of the reply, it is writ large that the respondents after receiving the complaint of diversion from LAP, immediately constituted a Committee of Revenue Officer and Technical Staff of MoRTH, PIU, Beawar, who visited the site in-question and upon finding demarcation of right of way done by the contractor at CH 70/900 to 71/100 not in accordance with the Land Acquisition Plan (LAP), the Committee found that some correction was required to be done in accordance with the Notification published under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 and as per the approved LAP but unfortunately the Committee could not do the needful at the site due to threatening and misbehaviour of the local people, which is reflected by the Communication dated 07.04.2021 made between the Project Director and SDM placed on record as Annex.R/1 and thus, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents overlooked the errors and did not take action to rectify the same is not acceptable. 18. This fact cannot be ignored that the widening of the National Highway from Km 68.017 to Km 89.800 is almost complete except for the land in-question qua the petitioners and thus, huge amount of money has been already spent on the said construction for the public at large and thus, it would cause huge loss to the public exchequer, if this Court grants indulgence in the said project, particularly when the petitioner has failed to show any [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (25 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] illegality in the process adopted by the respondents for construction of the National Highway. 19. This Court also observes that NHAI/MoRTH is a statutory body having experts in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways, who are having vast knowledge and expertise and, thus, this Court while exercising its extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not enter into the domain of sufficiency and the demarcation of Right of Way as determined in the Land Acquisition Plan and the Notifications dated 13.3.2020, published in the newspaper on 22.08.2020 (Annex.5) and 29.10.2020 published in the newspaper on 07.11.2020 (Annex.6) under Sections 3A(1) and 3D of the Act of 1956 respectively, which has been duly approved and issued by the competent authority. Furthermore, it is also important to note that judicial interference in acquisition matters is limited as in the present case the impugned Notifications dated 13.3.2020 published in the newspaper on 22.08.2020 (Annex.5) and 29.10.2020 published in the newspaper on 07.11.2020 (Annex.6) do not reveal any just circumstance for invoking judicial review jurisdiction. 20. It is also important to note that as per the stipulated period of 21 days as laid down under Section 3C of the Act of 1956, when no objections were filed, the competent authority while invoking provision under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 declared the notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 on 29.10.2020, published in the newspaper on 07.11.2020 (Annex.6). Upon publication of declaration under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3D of the Act of 1956, the land shall vest absolutely in the Central [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (26 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] Government free from all encumbrances. Section 3D of the Act reads as under:- “3D. Declaration of acquisition.—(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub- section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority.” Thus, once the land in-question vests with the Central Government, then there is no reason that this Court should grant indulgence to the petitioners, particularly, when the petitioners chose not to invoke Section 3C of the Act of 1956 by way of filing objections within a period of 21 days and also huge expenditure has already been incurred for the construction of the National Highway as most of the construction work is already over and the [2023:RJ-JD:32399] (27 of 27) [CW-15880/2021] project executed for public interest should not be put to judicial review until and unless the same suffers from patent illegality or is de-hors the rules or is irratonal or otherwise unreasonable or purpose is actually “no public purpose” at all and fraud on the statute is apparent. 21. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 22. The stay applications and all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 23. Copy of this order shall be placed in each file. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 257, 259 to 266-skm/- "