Dismissed

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2014CWP/18077/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition seeking to quash notifications for land acquisition under the National Highways Act. Holding that objections were duly considered and the acquisition served public interest, the court found no ground to interfere under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the acquisition notifications was dismissed.

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18077of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 03.09.2014

¶3

Nachhattar Singh and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶11

The petitioners have prayed for quashing notification

¶12

issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated
5.7.2013 (Annexure P/5) and notification dated 4.2.2014 under

¶13

Section 3(D) of the aforesaid Act (Annexure P/29) whereby land
was acquired for a public purpose, namely, building
(widening/four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and
operation of National Highway No.15.

¶14

 The grievance of the petitioners is that no reasons
whatsoever have been given while dismissing the objections filed
by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance

¶15

on Union of India and othersvs. Shiv Raj and others, 2014 (2)

¶16

Law Herald (SC) 1765 to contend that valid reasons must be given

¶17

while disposing of objections under Section 5A of the Land

¶18

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-18077-2014

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

Acquisition Act. Learned counsel further submits that out of 25
petitioners, objections of 21 petitioners have been duly
considered by the respondents. However, the objections filed by
the remaining four petitioners, who are petitioner Nos.1, 3, 14
and 15 have not been considered.

¶22

 We have perused the decision passed by the competent
authority while disposing of the objections filed by various
objectors. In all, 67 objections were considered by the competent
authority. A perusal of the manner in which the objections have
been disposed of shows that a detailed survey was conducted and

¶23

keeping in view the technical, safety, environment and financial
factors, it was found that the alignment of the highway approved
by the Government cannot be changed. It has further been stated
that public interest is supreme and suitable compensation is
liable to be given to the objectors.

¶24

 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we
are of the considered view that the objections filed by the
petitioners and other objectors have been duly considered. The
acquisition of land would serve a larger public purpose i.e.
widening/four-laning of a National Highway. In the absence of any

¶25

material to show that the said decision of the competent
authority is arbitrary or opposed to any rule or regulations, we
find nothing wrong in the conclusion reached that alignment of
the highway cannot be changed for the technical, safety,
environment and financial factors. The authority cited i.e. Shiv

¶26

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-18077-2014

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

Raj and others(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. The objections filed by petitioner Nos.1,3,14 and
15 were similar to various other objectors, therefore, it cannot
be said that any prejudice has been caused to these petitioners.

¶30

 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no
ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

03.09.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶34

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.04 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachhattar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Parkash & Anr. Vs Improvement Trust Tribunal & Anr.

Ritu Wadhwa Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kuljit Singh Bedi Vs Union of India etc.

Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balam Khan Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ved Parkash Arya Vs State of Haryana etc.