IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

26
CWP No. 9of 2022

1. Mithoo Devi aged about 57 years W/o Sh. Mukta Bahadur resident of

H.No. 18-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 6540

8055 7939, Mobile no.. 9654021099.

2. Sheela Devi aged about 42 years wife of Sh. Satish kumar resident of

H.No. 20-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 6455

8326 0307, Mobile no. 8901545898.

3. Balbir Singh aged' about 51 years S/o Sh. Jai Narain resident of H.No.

21-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no.

985925551689, Mobile no. 9899474979.

4. Pali aged about 48 years S/o Sh. Son-2 Nath resident of H.No. 17-A,

Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 6359 6682 3174,

Mobile no. 9811884181.

5. Rajinder aged about 54 years S/o Rishal Singh resident of H.

No. 23-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 4135

1517 9297, Mobile no. 7011267022.

6. Tejpal aged about 49 years S/o Sh. Daya Singh resident of H. No. 24-

A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no.

540686515368, Mobile no. 8010554356.

7. Pavitra aged about 48 years W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar resident of H.No.

22-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram presently residing at

Flat No. 203, Shakti Apartments, Sector-15, Part-II, Gurugram.

Aadhar no. 6621 9372 9465, Mobile no. 981086781.

8. Sumitra Devi aged about 55 years W/o Sh. Chand Singh resident of

H.No. 37-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 4816

8400 0448, Mobile no.981036781.

... Petitioners
 8

Versus

1. Union of India through its Chief Secretary, office at 502-C, Shastri

Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways, office at Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New

Delhi-110001.

3. District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority, Land Acquisition

Gurugram, office at Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon.

4. National Highways Authority of India through its Project Director, Project

Implementation Unit Rewari, office at Plot No. 20, Sector-32,

Institutional Area, Gurugram 122003.

... Respondents

.0 %

Place: Chandigarh (AIVk J IN)

Date: 20.10.2022 (PH-220413) (P/619/2007), ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 9

Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash all the

proceedings incidental and ancillary to the acquisition in

question, including:

i. The impugned Notification bearing S.O. No. 727(E) dated

05.02.2019 (published on 14.02.2019) issued under

section 3A (1) of National Highways Act, 1956.

(Annexure P-1).

ii. The impugned Notification bearing S.O. No. 151(E) dated

10.01.2020 (published on dated 25.01.2020) issued under

section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. (Annexure

P-2)

iii. The impugned Award No. 2 dated 30.06.2020 and

subsequent correction awards dated 29.07.2020, 31.08.2020

and 07.10.2020 passed by District Revenue Officer cum

Competent Authority (L.A.) Gurugram under section 3G of

the National Highways Act, 1956, (Annexure P-25 to

Annexure P-28).

iv. The impugned subsequent award no. 29 dated 11.12.2020 for

acquisition of land (Structure) passed by District

Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority (L.A.)

Gurugram under section 3G of the National Highways Act,

1956, (Annexure P-30) being illegal, null, void-ab-initio,

arbitrary. Further the same are ultra vires, violative and

contrary to:

a. The Provisions of Section 26 to 30, 31, 32, 38 and

105(3) i.e. First, Second and Third Schedule of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement

 10

Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 2013), the

guidelines, and rules.

b. The Notification S. O. 2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015

(Annexure P-19) issued by Government of India and

published in The Gazette of India.

c. The Letter dated 11.09.2015 issued by the Deputy

Secretary, Govt. of India. (Annexure P-32)

d. The Statutory provisions of section 4 to 6 86 16 to 19

of the Act of 2013 which provide that proper survey

and SIA study should be conducted and

comprehensive Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Scheme/Policy should be framed before initiating

piocess of acquisition.

e. Fundamental rights of petitioners enshrined under

Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

f. Constitutional right to property of petitioners

enshrined under Article 300-A of Constitution of

India.

g. Environmental laws of the country.

AND
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India, commanding the respondents and each

one of them, their men, servants, agents, associates,

subordinates, administrators and assignees to:

i. Conduct proper survey and pass alignment accordingly,

ii. Prepare a comprehensive Rehabilitation Policy Framework

(RPF) and conduct the Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

Study on the lines of RPF (Annexure P-34) and SIA

(Annexure P-35) study framed and conducted by the

MORTH, Govt. of India for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma-

 11

Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Ras Beawar-

Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E

Paderu-Araku, NH-516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C &

NH 731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah projects,

as the petitioners are claiming parity to the

landowners/persons affected in such projects.

iii. Issue Notification u/s 3A(1) (including all other incidental

proceedings) afresh according to fresh survey.

iv. Update the land revenue record and revise the market value

of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that

area as contemplated in second last proviso to section 26

of the Act of 2013.

v. Pass Award for land afresh including compensation for

fully furnished residential houses, fixed assets and other

structures and things permanently fastened or attached to

land subject matter of acquisition in view of section 26 to

30 and First schedule of the Act of 2013 and

vi. Pass the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in view

of section 31, 38 and 105(3) and Second schedule of the

Act of 2013 to provide constructed houses and other

structures for the residential houses and other structures

and fixtures lost by the petitioners by the acquisition in

question, and

vii. Make provisions for infrastructural facilities and basic

amenities, in resettlement area as per Third schedule and

section 32, 38 and 105(3) of the Act of 2013, and

viii. Decide each and every objection/claim filed and

representation given by petitioners u/s 3-A-C(1) to 3-G of

National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as Act of

 12

1956) at appropriate stage, in view of relevant statutory

provisions by passing speaking order, and

ix. Provide or make provision for new electricity connections

from DHBVNL in place of connections lost due this

acquisition, and

x. Provide adequate amount of compensation for the structures

which are not subject matter of acquisition but would be

damaged/rendered non-livable/unusable during course of

demolishing structures subject matter of acquisition,

xi. To acquire the remaining marginal portion of land left out

from acquisition (if any),

xii. Make a specific provision that construction would be permitted

on remaining part of land and Central and State Rules of "No

Construction Zone" or requirement of CLU or NOC would

not apply to remaining part of the land left un-acquired.

xiii. Make payment of 100 percent compensation in view of Section

3H(1), 3H(2) of Act of 1956, Section 38 of the Act of 2013

and Manner of depositing amount by central government with

competent authority for acquisition of land, Rules, 2019

before taking possession of the land and structures in

question.

And
The respondents their men, servants, agents, associates,

subordinates, administrators and assignees be restrained from

taking possession of properties subject matter of acquisition

without redressing grievances of petitioners in compliance to

constitutional and statutory provisions, rules, letters, guidelines,

notifications and corrigendum issued by Central or State govt. in

that regard and as done by respondents for similar situated persons affected

by acquisition of their land for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma-Fediz, NH-

70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Ras-Beawar-Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-

Vizianagram, NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH-516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-

730C 86 NH-731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah projects.

And

Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India asking respondent competent authority that under

which authority of law he has given a finding like a civil court that land

subject matter of this acquisition even though is situated in a colony

named as Saraswati Enclave measuring 56.36 acres within the limits of

Municipal Corporation, Gurugram as per the Gazette Notification bearing

no. SO 81/H.A.13/ 2013/S.3/2013 dated 04.10.2013 issued by Urban

Local Bodies Department, Government of Haryana (Annexure P-18)

whereby said colony was declared to be civic amenities and

infrastructure deficient areas. Thus has wrongly and illegally decided to

consider all these houses, structures as agricultural land.

And
Order may kindly be passed against the erring respondents to impose

penalty for willful contravention of the provisions of section 84(3), 85 and

87 of the Act of 2013.

And

Issue any other order writ or direction in favour of petitioners which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the petitioners are law abiding citizens of India and

permanent residents of Gurugram, State of Haryana and are thus entitled and

competent to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court

under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their

grievances.
2. That respondents are departments/instrumentalities of the Union

of India and the State of Haryana, hence to be construed as 'State' under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the reliefs sought for can be

redressed by the same.

3. That the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of

India has acquired the residential property owned and possessed by

petitioners situated at Sarawati Enclave Colony, Kadipur, Gurugram which

falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurugram for purpose of

building (widening/four laning etc.), maintenance, management and

operation of NH-352W (Gurugram-Pataudi-Rewari Road) on stretch of

land from Km 0 to K.M. 45 (Mini Secretariat, Gurugram) in the Village

Kadipur, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram, in the State of Haryana. Copy

of notification dated 05.02.2019 issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act of

1956 published in newspaper on 14.02.2019 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-1. Further, copy of notification bearing S.O. No. 151(E) dated

10.01.2020 issued under section 3 D (1) of the Act of 1956 is annexed

herewith as Annexure P-2.

4. That the land/property of petitioners subject matter of

acquisition is shown to be comprised in khasra no. 32/ /7 min (2-10). It is

submitted herein that their residential houses, constructed staircase,

spread foundation, load bearing RCC Pillar rooms, super quality toilets

with washroom facilities, proper sewerage and drainage system and fruit

bearing and non-fruit bearing trees are situated and existing upon the land

subject matter of acquisition.

That acquisition in question is involuntary acquisition rather it

is against wishes and intention of petitioners because this proposed project

is going to demolish a number of residential accommodations of

petitioners situated on land subject matter of this proposed acquisition.

They and their families are residing upon land subject matter of

acquisition. The houses and other structures have been renovated/

reconstructed and extended from time to time as per modern facilities and
requirements of the day. Some of petitioners have purchased the land

under acquisition with their hard earned money to build it and even

though name of some of petitioner is not being reflected in revenue

record, however they are owners in possession by virtue of registered sale

deeds in their favor respectively, which can be verified by respondents

and/or petitioner will place on record as and when directed by this

Hon'ble Court.

It is submitted herein that property in question is situated

within fully developed vicinity of Saraswati Enclave in city Gurugram and

is well connected to the main road. The structures and houses of petitioners

situated on land in question are fully equipped with modern facilities as per

need of day and are new one and are renovated from time to time by

spending huge amount of money. The houses of petitioners situated on

property subject matter of acquisition is evident from the photographs of

houses of petitioner as per their serial in memo of parties are attached

herewith as Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-10.

Moreover, petitioners have electricity, water connections and

property tax over houses subject matter of acquisition and are regularly

paying property tax to Municipal Corporation Gurugram, electricity bills

and other requisite charges to concerned boards. Some of petitioners are

also paying income tax to Government of India. Copies of electricity bills,

property tax are annexed herewith as Annexure P-11 to Annexure P-16.

It is also pertinent to mention herein that nature of land in

question being not agricultural as has been wrongly and illegally shown by

respondents is also evident from the survey plan of Saraswati Enclave as

prepared by Municipal Corporation Gurugram which shows that land in

question is fully developed and is surrounded by Sector 10-A, Industrial

Sector 37-A, Sector 37 Pace City-2, Sector 37-B, 37-C developed by

HUDA and Kadipur Industrial Area and Kadipur Enclave and therefore is

not an ordinary agricultural land. The copy of survey plan of Saraswati

Enclave is attached as Annexure P-17.

 It is further apposite to mention here that Government of

Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department vide gazette notification no.

S.O. 81/H.A. 13/2013/S. 3/2013 dated 04.10.2013 whereby at Serial No.

243, the area of 56.36 acres of colony Saraswati Enclave in limits of

Municipal Corporation Gurugram has been declared to be civic amenities

and infrastructure deficient area. The copy of notification dated

04.10.2013 is attached as Annexure P-18.

5. That the idea of eminent domain as a power peculiar to the

sovereign authority or government to take private property for public use

without the owner's consent is coupled with a duty to pay fair and just

compensation alongwith all entitlements and statutory benefits. The idea

comes from 17th-century natural law jurists as Hugo Grotius and Samuel

Pufendorf. The English practice in the early 17th century was for

Parliament to authorize the taking of property and either to prescribe the

amount to be paid or to provide a judicial proceeding to determine it. The

proceeding was held without the presence of the owner. With the passage

of time, judicial procedures were developed enabling the owner to be

heard on question of compensation. But in India, our land acquisition

authorities are still living in 17 century despite of the fact that our land

acquisition law has been developed with passing of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (replacing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). In

case in hand, entire residential houses, structures and superstructures

of petitioners are subject matter of this acquisition as such they are

going to be displaced/homeless and landless persons due to

acquisition in question but respondents have deliberately missed to

follow the procedure prescribed by law to provide them

compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits and

entitlements to which petitioners are lawfully entitled in view of

the Act of 2013. In this prevalent acquisition proceedings /procedure

followed by requiring body and competent authority, landowners have

no say in determination of compensation. No doubt, affected persons

are provided an opportunity to file their objections and claims in view

of section 3C(1) and 3G(3) of National Highways Act of 1956 but

Competent Authorities for land Acquisition in the State of Haryana are

in practice of rejecting all such objections and claims in one line

without application of mind, the same practice has been opted in the

case in hand.

6. That involuntary displacement creates feelings of insecurity,

anxiety and misunderstanding among Project Affected Persons. Social

Impact Assessment and public community participation helps to remove

such uncertainties. Keeping this in view, the Central Legislature has

enacted specific provisions qua the same in the Act of 2013. But the

respondent NHAI and competent authority have deliberately violated the

mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 as they had neither conducted

any Social Impact Assessment nor framed any Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Scheme/Policy before initiating the acquisition proceedings

in question. As a result, they have failed to pass the Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Award. In order to pass the R 8v R Award, the respondents

were duty bound to take certain preliminary steps i.e., they should have

prepared a Social Impact Assessment Report (SIA) and the Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Scheme for the displaced families.

The main objectives of the SIA are to minimize negative impact in the

project area, to make people aware of the project and to ascertain their

views and preferences. As part of the Social Impact Assessment

process, detailed consultations are required to made with all

stakeholders to identify the:

a. Impacts to the private property (title holders) consisting of:

i. Loss of private land;

0. Loss of private residential structures;

i. Loss of private commercial structures;

 ii. Impacts to tenants (residential/commercial /agricultural) of

title holders; and

iii. Impacts to trees, standing crops, etc.;

b. Impacts to non-title holders consisting of impacts to

squatters and impacts to encroachers;

c. Loss of employment to agricultural and non-agricultural workers/

employees;

d. Additional assistance to vulnerable displaced persons

including the and

e. Unforeseen impacts.
In accordance with the principles of R 85 R Scheme, all

displaced households and persons are entitled to a combination of

compensation packages and resettlement assistance depending on the

nature of ownership rights on lost assets and scope of the impacts

including socio-economic vulnerability of the displaced persons and

measures to support livelihood restoration if livelihood impacts are

envisaged. The displaced persons are entitled to the following types of

compensation and assistance packages:

i. Compensation for the loss of land, crops/trees at their replacement
cost;
ii. Compensation for structures (residential/commercial) and other
immovable assets their replacement cost;
iii. Alternate housing for physical displacement;
iv. Assistance in lieu of loss of business/wage income and income
restoration assistance;
v. Assistance for shifting and provision for relocation site and
vi. Rebuilding and/or restoration of community resources/
facilities.

7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the families of married

sons, grandsons of petitioners are residing in same houses and petitioners

are recorded owners of the property. Therefore not only landowners and

their families are also covered under definition of affected Families and

Displaced Families in view of section 3(c) and 3(k) of the Act of 2013
respectively as such are entitled to all the benefits and entitlements

provided under the First, Second and Third schedule of the act of 2013.

8. That the instant petition has not been preferred for

enhancement of compensation but is seeking directions against erring

respondents to implement statutory provisions of beneficial legislation

i.e. the Act of 2013 enacted by Central Legislature. The whole case of the

petitioners is that provisions relating to compensation, benefits and

entitlements provided under the First, Second and Third schedules and

section 41 & 42 of the Act of 2013, if followed by respondents (after

preparing a SIA Report and framing a comprehensive Rehabilitation &

Resettlement Scheme in view of the provisions of the Act of 2013) in

their true spirit, are sufficient to fairly compensate, rehabilitate and

resettle families of affected landowner/petitioners being affected families

and "displaced families in view of section 3(c) and 3(k) of the Act of

2013 respectively. As such in view of the provisions of the Act of 2013,

the Central Govt. Notification dated 28.08.2015 and other relevant

statutory provisions the respondent competent authority was duty bound

to pass the Award for land and structures as well as the R & R Award

accordingly which he has completely failed to do. The copy of the

notification S.O. 2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-19.

9. That one of petitioner namely Pavitra had filed detailed

objections to the notification issued under section 3A (1) of the National

Highway Act, 1956 whereby, it has been requested that property under

acquisition may kindly be released and objector may kindly be

considered sympathetically and notification under Section 3 (1) of Land

Acquisition Act be cancelled and withdrawn for land in question or in

alternative maximum compensation be awarded. The Copy of the

objection is annexed herewith as Annexure P-20.

10. That without considering objections of landowners/

petitioners a notification no. S.O. 151(E) dated 09.01.2020 (P-2) was

issued under subsection (1) of 3(D) of the Act was published in official

gazette. By virtue of sub Section 2 of Section 3(D) of the Act land stood

vest absolutely with Central. Government. The revenue authorities have

made entries pertaining to vesting of the land with the Central Govt. in

revenue record and now petitioners/landowners/proprietors would not

mortgage, transfer, sale, exchange land in question.

11. That most of petitioners again sent their claims/objections

which were duly received on 23.02.2021, whereby, they have taken all

the objections pleading therein that notice of acquisition of land is

illegal and unlawful so the Government of Haryana is estopped from its

act, conduct etc. to acquire and publish in gazette notification regarding

the same purpose and thus present notification is liable to be set aside as

same is totally illegal, arbitrary and against natural justice and prayed

that adequate compensation of Rupees One Crore on account of

structure of said residential house be awarded. But all in vain. The

copies of Objections to 3D Notifications filed by petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are

annexed as Annexure P-21 to Annexure P-24.

12. That on 30.06.2020, District Revenue Officer cum

Competent Authority Land Acquisition Gurugram passed Award no. 2

dated 30.06.2020 and subsequent correction awards dated 29.07.2020,

31.08.2020 and 07.10.2020, determining compensation of land without

considering nature of land and taking same to be ordinary agricultural in

nature. As stated in preceding paras, that property subject matter of

acquisition is Gair-mumkin, residential and commercial in nature but

respondent competent authority violated statutory provisions as

compensation has been determined by considering entire land as

agricultural in nature. The petitioners have their water submersible

pumps, tubewells, fittings and fixtures installed on land subject matter

of acquisition which are installed by them by spending a huge amount

 of money, lots of time and efforts but this fact has been totally ignored

while passing impugned Award as such no compensation for same is

provided in the same. Furthermore, the Award has been passed

secretly without any intimation and information to the petitioners.

None of provisions of section 26 to 30, First schedule of the Act of

2013 and Annexure 4 to the Manual of Guidelines, 2017 has been followed

in their true letter and spirit while passing this award in question. The copy

of impugned Award dated 30.06.2020 and subsequent correction awards

dated 29.07.2020, 31.08.2020 and 07.10.2020 are annexed herewith as

Annexure P-25 to Annexure P-28.

13. That petitioners time and again visited office of

respondents requesting to grant compensation at commercial rates,

to pass R & R Award in view of second and third schedule and

provide additional compensation and prepare a Development plan

in view of provisions of the Act of 2013 and petitioners were orally

assured that their grievances would be redressed and needful will be

done. But nothing has been done.

14. That notice under Section 3E(1) of NHAI Act, 1956 of award

vide endorsement no. 563/LAC/ NHAI dated 07.12.2020 purportedly

shown to have been issued to attend announcement of award to deliver

and surrender possession of land within 60 days. It is submitted herein

that a bare perusal of said award clearly shows the ambiguity in

acquisition proceedings as number of persons are shown in the column

of name of owner in khasra no. 32/ /7 with the details of structure as

house. The copy of notice dated 07.12.2020 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-29.
That the petitioners are also annexing the copy of a
Google Map showing the area in question and the construction of the
houses in the revenue estate of Village Kadipur. The perusal thereof
shows already almost a six lane concrete pucca road has been
constructed by the Gurugram Municipal Development Authority
(GMDA) going upto Sector 9 from the revenue estate of Village
Kadipur. Infact, as per the verbal information obtained by the
petitioners, it transpired that the acquisition in question under
challenge in the present writ petition wrongly and inadvertently
carried out. Infact, there is no necessity of changing the alignment.
The same stretch of concrete path/road as submitted hereinabove is
constructed further without disturbing the alignment then there
would be no necessity of the instant acquisition and the houses of
the petitioners would be outrightly saved from demolition. The copy
of the said Google Map is being annexed herewith as Annexure _____
.

That petitioners came to know that respondent

competent authority has already passed Award for structures on

11.12.2020 without any basis and is making arrangements to take the

possession of the land in question without passing the Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Award and making provision for infrastructural amenities.

This

structural award has also been passed secretly without any intimation or

information to the petitioners and they came to know about the same

from some reliable sources and land pertaining to khasra no. 32//7 is

mentioned at serial no. 16 to 24 (09 Nos.) of impugned award. The Copy

of impugned Structural Award is annexed herewith as Annexure P-30.

15. That one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 7 filed

objection/petition under Section 3G(5) of the Act, the contents of the same

are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity however the copy of the

same is annexed herewith as Annexure P-31.

In view of fact that not only land but fully furnished

residential houses, other structures, trees and fittings and fixtures

including permanently affixed equipment of petitioners are also subject

matter of this acquisition, respondents, competent authority and NHAI

who were duty bound to prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Policy/Scheme for project affected persons of this acquisition, to pass

the award for land strictly in the letter and spirit of section 26 to 30 and

First Schedule, to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award in view of

section 31 and 32 i.e. Second and Third schedule of the Act of 2013, to

prepare a Development Plan for rehabilitation of project affected

petitioners, have apparently failed to perform such duty thus rendering

helpless petitioners to run from post to pillar including filing of this

present writ petition. Moreover all objections and claims submitted by

 them have been completely ignored. The petitioners have approached

this Hon'ble court as a last resort to resolve their genuine grievances.

16. That section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 directs the Central

Govt. to issue a notification within one year from date of

commencement of this Act, that any of provisions of this Act relating to

determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule

and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third

Schedules, being beneficial to affected families, shall apply to cases of

land acquisition under enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. The

National Highways Act, 1956 is specified at serial no. 7 in the 13

enactments listed in fourth schedule to the Act of 2013. The provisions

of section 105(3) are hereunder reproduced for ready reference of this

Hon'ble court:

"105(3): The Central Government shall, by notification, within one

year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the

provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in

accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement

specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the

affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the

enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such

exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or

dilute the provisions of the Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation

and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be,

From bare perusal of provisions of section 105(3) of the Act of

2013, the Intention of legislature is very much clear that no exceptions or

modifications that reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this

Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement are allowed

while making the provisions of the Act of 2013 applicable.

17. That incompliance with this section 105(3) of the Act of

2013, the central government had issued certain ordinances relating to

applicability of provisions of Act of 2013 relating to determination of

compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to cases of land

acquisition under all 13 enactments specified in the Fourth schedule of the

Act of 2013 Initially the Central government has Issued RFCTLARR

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 (9 of 2014) which was promulgated on

31.12.2014 thereby inter alia, amending section 105 of the Act of 2013 to

extend the provisions of Act relating to determination of compensation and

rehabilitation and resettlement to cases of land acquisition under the

enactment specified in fourth schedule to the Act of 2013. Then

RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2014) was promulgated

on 3.4.2015 to give continuity to the provisions of RFCTLARK

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. Afterwards, the RFCTLARR Amendment)

second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2014) was promulgated on 30.05.2015 to

give continuity to the provisions of RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance,

2014. Finally in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of

Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), the

Central government has promulgated the "Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(Removal of difficulties) Order, 2015 by issuing the gazette the

RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are applicable. The copy of Letter dated 11.09.2015

is annexed herewith as Annexure P-32.

18. That even prior to notification dated 28.08.2015, the Second and

Third schedules of Act of 2013 were made applicable to acquisition

accruing on or after 01/01/2015 by the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, New Delhi vide memo No. NHAI/11013/DGM/(LA 8,5

COORD. /FTS/3247/ 65906 dated 12.05.2015 by notifying that "The Right

to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013" has been adopted to be applied in the cases of land acquisition

notified u/s 3(D) of National Highways Act, 1956 accruing on or after

01.01.2015.
19. That the Central Government exercising powers u/s 9 (2) (aa)

of the Act has enacted The National Highway (manner of depositing the

amount by the central government with the competent authority for

acquisition of land), Rules, 2019 which has described manner of

depositing the amount by opening account prior to pronouncement of

award by competent authority u/s 3(G)(1) of the Act. Moreover the

executing agency is duty bound to make the amount of compensation

available within 15 days from the date of demand raised by the

competent authority. The Copy of Rules of Disbursement is annexed

herewith as Annexure P-33.

20. That Section 38 of the Act of 2013 as has been made applicable

to the land acquired under National Highways Act, 1956 vide notification

dated 28.08 2015 and Letter dated 11.09.2015 provides that not only

passing of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award is mandatory but

payment of 100% compensation is also required before taking the

possession of property subject matter of acquisition. Section 38 is hereby

reproduced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court:

"38. The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that

full payment of the compensation as well as rehabilitation and

resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the persons within

a period of 3 months for the compensation and a period of 6 months

for monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements

listed in Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award."

Moreover as per section 38(2) of the Act of 2013, "the collector is

duty bound to ensure that the rehabilitation and resettlement

process is completed in all respects before displacing the affected

families." Similarly Section 3(H)(1) of the National Highways Act,

1956 provides that "the amount determined under Section 3(G)

shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as

may be laid down by Rules made in their behalf by that

 Government, with the competent authority before taking possession

of the land".

21. That in view of provisions of the Act of 2013, petitioners are

entitled to and respondents are duty bound to:

i. Conduct survey to ascertain the existence, value houses, trees,

other structures, fixed assets and mechanism etc. upon property

in question and prepare a Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Policy/ Scheme for displaced persons and their families as has

been done by respondents for similar situated persons affected

by acquisition of their land for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gummu

Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Rus-Beawar-Mandal,

NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH

516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C & NH-731K Bewar-Pilibhit,

NH-92 Bewar-Etawal projects.

ii. Prepare a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment Report in view

of section 4 to 6 of the Act of 2013 as has been done in the case of

acquisition of land for the above said projects.

iii. Make a Development plan for the project affected families of

petitioners in view of section 41 of the Act of 2013,

iv. Determine value of land along with buildings, structures and things

attached and affixed to it in view of section 20 to 30, First schedule

of the Act of 2013,

v. Award solatium (100%) and award an amount calculated at the rate

of 12% pa on market value of property, in view of section 30 of the

Act of 2013,

vi. Pronounce individual Awards in view of section 30(2) of the Act of

2013,

0. Pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award and to make provisions for

infrastructural facilities and basic amenities and other benefits

entitlements as per section 31(1), 32, 38, 105(3) Second and Third

Schedule of the Act, 2013 before proceeding further

i. To pay the entire amount of compensation and all the benefits and

entitlements to the petitioners before displacing them in view of section

382) of the Act of 2013.

But unfortunately in case in hand, none of entitlement

mentioned above has either been paid or tendered. In fact

rehabilitation and resettlements award has not been passed at all so

question of payment does not arise as such it is sheer violation of

mandatory provisions of law, rules, notifications and guidelines

mentioned above. Not only this, the respondent

authorities are attempting to take possession of the land in

question by demolishing residential houses and other structures

of petitioners without passing R & R Award and making

provision for infrastructural amenities in resettlement area.

Shockingly, the public notice to take possession of land and

structures was published even prior to passing of supplementary

award i.e., other part of Award for land. In view of all these

illegalities, acquisition process in question does not stand in the

eyes of law and principles of natural justice. Thus deserves to be

declared null and void.

It has been held by Hon'ble DB of Allahabad High court in

case titled Ashok Kumar and Another v/s State of U.P. and others cited

as 2005 All 1,,J (364) DB that where no procedure was followed as

envisaged in Land Acquisition Act while acquiring land of petitioners,

the High handed action of state is wholly illegal and violative of Article

300-A of the constitution of India and state was directed either to

restore possession of Land in question to the petitioners or to pay

compensation with exemplary cost.

22. That residential houses and other structures of petitioners

and other similar situated persons stood acquired as such Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Award as specified in the Second schedule of the Act,

2013 was required be passed as per the provisions contained in section

31(1) 38(1) and 105(3), Second schedule of the Act, 2013. The

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award contemplated by provisions of

Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 not only fairly and

transparently compensate petitioners/landowners affected by compulsory

acquisition but also rehabilitate and resettle them in the way they were

settled before the acquisition in question. This Award in the letter and

spirit of Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 is an Award

which restores the monetary, psychological and social damages suffered

by the affected landowners due to the involuntary acquisition and

provides them financial capacity to resettle their habitat and business in

the way they were settled prior to the acquisition of their land, residence

and sources of livelihood. As per the Merriam-Webster

dictionary, the word rehabilitation means NOTE 1. Details of each

component of infrastructural amenities mentioned under column (2) against

serial numbers to 25 should be indicated by the acquirer of land.

23. That by pronouncing impugned award, carrying a number of

illegalities like change of recorded nature of land, absence of

compensation for structures, trees and fixed assets, passing it without

deciding objections filed by petitioners and not passing individual

Awards, competent authority has completely violated not only abovesaid

statutory provisions but also the provisions of notifications/regulations/

guidelines/circulars issued by central government in this regard. As

such indulgence of this Hon'ble Court is immediately required so that

compliance of such statutory provisions to provide adequate lawful

compensation in view of First schedule, alternative residential

places/constructed houses, infrastructural amenities and other benefits as per

Second and Third schedule and Section 31, 32, 38, 105((3) of the Act of

2013 can be provided to petitioners.

24. That it is well settled proposition of law that writ petition

under Article 226/227 is well maintainable if the government authority

fails to comply with the statutory provisions of an Act enacted by the

Central or State Legislature, Notifications, Rules, Guidelines and

Corrigendum issued by the Central or State Government The present

writ petition under Article 226/227 is maintainable and deserves to be

allowed for the following reasons in addition to grounds enumerated in

the succeeding and preceding paras.

a) Because the respondents are not only violating the statutory

provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1956 but sig letters,

Rules, Guidelines. Notifications issued by MORTH or NHAI, the

Government of India,

b) Because the respondent NHAI has failed to conduct the Social

 Impact Assessment (BIA) study, prepare a Social Impact

Assessment Pan and to publish the Social Impact Assessment

Report in view of section 4 to 6 of the Act of 2013. As per the

provisions of these sections, the requiring authority is bound to

take into consideration the impact that the project is likely to have

on various components such as livelihood of affected families,

public and community properties, assets and infrastructure

particularly roads, public transport, drainage, sanitation, sources

of drinking water, sources of water for cattle, community ponds,

grazing land, plantations, public utilities such as post offices, fair

price shops, food storage godowns, electricity supply, health care

facilities, schools and educational or training facilities, anganwadis,

children parks, places of worship, land for traditional tribal

institutions and burial and cremation grounds.

Moreover as per para 3.10(iii) of the Guidelines of 2018, an

obligation has been imposed on the requiring body to undertake

DRONE/LIDAR survey in the process of determination of

alignment/ preparation of details for Section 3A notification. But

unfortunately, till date no concerned official has made any

personal or expert visit to conduct survey to ascertain the

existence, value and condition of the residential houses, shops,

workshop, cattle sheds, fruit and non-fruit bearing trees, other

structures, super structures, fixed assets and mechanism etc upon

the land in question, so assurance, expectation, probability for

preparing and publishing such SIA study, R & R Award at this

belated stage does not arise at all

c) Because respondent NHAI has failed to prepare Resettlement

Scheme in view of section 16 to 20 of the Act of 2013 for the

rehabilitation of project affected families. This Scheme was very

much necessary to be made in order to pass the R & R Award. The

fact of non preparation of this R & R scheme shows the malafide

intention of the respondents that they had no intention to pass the R

& R Award. It is a matter of record that till date no R & R Award

has been passed by the respondent competent authority. The

provisions of section 16 to 20 of the Act are reproduced as under

for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court;

"16. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme

by the Administrator-(1) Upon the publication of the preliminary

notification under sub section (1) of section 11 by the Collector,

the Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall

conduct a survey and undertake a census of the affected families,

in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, which

shall include

(a) particulars of lands and immovable properties being

acquired of each affected family,

(b) livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless

whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being

acquired;

(6) The Administrator shall, on completion of public hearing submit

the draft Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement along with a

specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public

hearing to the Collector.

17. Review of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme.

(1) The Collector shall review the draft Scheme submitted

under sub-section (0) of section 16 by the Administrator

with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at

the project level constituted under section 45. (2)The

Collector shall submit the draft Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Scheme with his suggestion the

 Commissioner Rehabilitation and Resettlement for approval of the

Scheme.

18. Approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be made

public- The Commissioner shall cause the approved

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be made available

in the local language to the Panchayat Municipality or

Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of

the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the

Tehsil, and shall be published on the affected areas, in sh

manner as may be prescribed, and uploasted on the website of

the appropriate Govt.

0. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and

Resettlement-(1)When the appropriate Government is satisfied,

after considering the report, ony made under sub-section (2) of

section 18 that any particular land is needed for a public

purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a

declaration of an area identified as the resettlement area for the

purposes of rehabilitation anal resettlement of the affected

families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such

Government un f any other officer duty authorized to certify its

orders and different declarations may be made from time to tow

respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same

preliminary notification respective of whether one report or

different reports has or have been made wherever required) (2)

The Collector shall publish a mummary of the Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Scheme along with declaration referred to in

sub- section (1): Provided that no declaration under this sub-

section shall be made unless the suironary of the Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration

Where no declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve

 months from the date of preliminary notification, then such

notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded

Provided that in computing the period referred to

in this sub section, any period or periods during which the

proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on

account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court

shall be excluded: Provided further that the appropriate

Government shall have the power to extend the period of

twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist

justifying the same: Provided also that any such decision

to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the

same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of

the authority concerned.

20. Land to be marked out, measured and planned

including marking of specific areas. The Collector shall

thereupon cause the land, unless it has been already

marked out under section 12, to be marked out and

measured, and if no plan has been made thereof, a plan to

be made of the sume.

d) Because respondent MORTH, Govt. of India has also initiated and

undertaken process of acquisition of land for maintenance,

construction and widening of 8 other National Highways namely

NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi,

NH-158 Ras-Beawar Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram,

NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH-SIGE Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C 86

NH 731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah Road. It is very

shocking to observe that a comprehensive Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF), April 2021, Social Impact Assessment and

Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan providing all the benefits

and entitlements provided by the Act of 2013 alongwith other

statutes, rules and policies to the land losers, proprietors,

employees, agricultural laborers, tenants, encroachers, street

vendors and their families has been prepared by respondents for

similar situated persons affected due to acquisition of land and

structures for these above named national highways. But it is not

understandable that why such kind of resettlement policy

framework and detailed SIA Report has not been prepared in case

of acquisition in hand when both of acquisitions are conducted by

the NHAI and are for linear projects ie, widening or construction

of National Highways. This act and conduct of opting double

standards by the respondent MORTH and NHAI amounts injustice

and discrimination with the present petitioners by the respondent

MORTH and the NHAI, Govt of India. This act of respondents

amounts to discrimination and infringement of fundamental right

to equality of the petitioners enshrined under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Some of the countable instances

discrimination/differences are under:

a. It has been categorically provided in para 11 of the RPF (P-

23 vol. 1 pg. no. 7) that the provisions of RFCTLARR Act,

2013 are applicable to all the above named projects:

b. In para 15 of RPF at running page 11, under head of

resettlement principles to be adopted for projects, it has

been stated that it is to be ensured that displaced persons

even without titles to land or any recognizable legal rights

are eligible for resettlement assistance and compensation

for loss of non-land assets at replacement value. Secondly

under above para it has also been specified that pay

 compensation and provide all resettlement entitlements

before physical or economic displacement and

commencement of civil work in that stretch.

c. In para 15 of RPF at running page 13, in addition to

entitlements provided in section 31 and Second Schedule,

provision has been made to provide some other extra

emoluments and entitlements.

d. In para 21 of RPF at running page 16, it has been directed

that all compensation and assistance will be paid to

project affected persons at least one month prior to

displacement of dispossession of assets

e. In para 22 of RPF at running page 16-17, it has been

categorically been stated that prior to taking possession of

land and properties the compensation will be fully paid and

affected persons will have the opportunity to harvest crops/

trees within 15 days from the date of payment of

compensation.

f. In para 25 of RPF at running page 17, it has been provided

that the PIU/District Administration will pass a separate

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award listing the names

of displaced persons and their in accordance with the

RPF.

g. In para 29 of RPF at running page 17, it has been mentioned

that SIA of the displaced persons will be undertaken in each

sub-project so as to determine the magnitude of

displacement and prospective losses, identify vulnerable

groups for targeting, ascertain costs of resettlement and

prepare a resettlement and rehabilitation program for

implementation.
h. In para 29(d) of RPF at running page 17, it has been provided

that sucio-economic survey shall be carried out using a

structural questionnaire that would capture details of

standard of living, inventory of assets, sources of income,

level of indebtness, profile of household members, health

and sanitation, access to services and facilities, perceived

benefits and impacts of the projects and resettlement

preferences for impacted households likely to be displaced.

0. In para 41 of RPF at running page 23, it has been stated that

ensure distribution of resettlement and rehabilitation policy

and entitlement matrix for the project to project affected

persons and ensure release of compensation and assistance

before taking over the possession of land for start of

construction work.

a. In para 43 of RPF at page 25, the respondents have

specified that the highest value of land obtained by the

three methods mentioned in section 26 and Schedule 1 of

the RFCTLARR will be presented by the Project

Authority and approved by the committee as the

replacement cost. Similarly, latest schedule of rates of the

concerned districts shall be used for obtaining

replacement cost of structures.

b. In para 54 of RPF at running page 29 it has been provided that

the resettlement budget will comprise itemized estimate of

compensation for land, structures, trees, crops, resettlement

assistances.

1. In para 56 of RPF at running page 30 it is stated that

release of compensation and assistance are to be done

 before taking over the possession of land for start of

construction work.

m. In para 6.4 of SIA for NH-707 (P-24) at its page 54-55 it has

been provided that: Replacement land shall be an option for

compensation in the case of loss of land. In case of

unavailability of replacement land, cash-for land with

compensation on replacement cost option will be made

available to the PAPS; Compensation for loss of land,

structures and other assets will be based on full replacement

cost and will be paid before physical displacement of PAPS

including transaction costs;

The uneconomic residual land remaining after land

acquisition will be acquired by the project. The owner of

such land/property will have the option to seek

acquisition of his entire contiguous holding/ property

provided the residual land is less than the average land

holding of the district,

Any structure/asset rendered unviable /unsafe

because of the project shall also be considered as

affected and entitlements shall be extended

accordingly:

The affected persons who does not own land or other

properties, but have economic interests or lose their

livelihoods will be assisted as per the policy principles

described in this document;

Vulnerable groups (PAP's below poverty line (BPL),

the landless, disabled, elderly persons, women and

children, indigenous peoples) will be identified and

given additional support and assistance under the

project
n. Similarly in para 6.5 of SIA for NH-707 at its page 56 59

it has been provided that:

>For Luss of Structure the title holder would

Compensation in accordance with Sections 26 to 30

and Schedule 1 of RFCTLARR Act 2013, Right to

salvage material from affected structures, Three

months advance notice to vacate structure, For those

losing cattle shed, a one-time assistance of Rs.

28,000/- would be payable, For each affected family

of an artisan or self-employed or own non-agricultural

land, that is displaced and must relocate, a one-time

assistance of Rs. 28,000/- would be payable; and One-

time subsistence grant of Rs 40,000/- for each affected

family who are displaced and require to relocate; One-

time financial assistance of Rs. 60,000/-

for each displaced family towards

shifting/ transportation cost for shifting of the family,

building materials, belongings and cattle, Refund of

stamp duty and registration charges for purchase of

alternative houses/shops at prevailing rates on the market

value as determined, Alternative houses/shops must be

bought within a year from the date of payment of

compensation

> For a house lost, a constructed house shall be provided

as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications or

equivalent cost of the constructed house in lieu, shall be

payable.

> In case of partial impact, 25% additional award to

be paid on compensation award for the affected part

of the structure to enable damage repair where the

owner/occupier of his/her own will, interested to retain

the remaining part of the structure, provided the

unimpaired continuous use of such structure is possible

without hazards.

> If as a result of land acquisition, the land owner

becomes landless or is reduced to the status of a

"small" or "marginal" farmer, assistance amount of

Rs. 6 lakhs OR annuity policies that shall pay not less

than two thousand rupees per month for each affected

land owner for twenty years with appropriate

indexation to the Consumer Price Index for

Agricultural Labourers,

> Each land owner shall be given a one-time

"Resettlement Allowance of Rs. 60,000/- only For

loss of shop: Compensation at PWD HSR without

depreciation for structure, One-time subsistence grant

of Rs. 40,000, One-time rehabilitation grant of Rs

28,000/ Shifting/transportation assistance of Rs.

60,000/- are to be provided.

>For Livelihood losers, the subaistence allowance

equivalent to Minimum Wages/Minimum Agricultural

Wages for 3 months is provided.

Additional Support to Vulnerable Group: One time

Resettlement Allowance of Rs 60,000/-, Training

for skill development. This assistance includes cost

of training and financial assistance for travel/

conveyance and food, additional Subsistence Grant

of Rs. 60,000/- for displaced families belonging to

Scheduled Caste and Tribe Category, Displaced

vulnerable households will be linked to the

 government welfare schemes, if found eligible and not

having availed the scheme benefit till date.

But in the case of this present acquisition, none of the

above mentioned entitlements or benefits are provided

to the petitioners. There is not even mention of

providing any of the same in the future also. In fact no

RPP or SIA is prepared then no question of providing

such benefits arise. Rather the possession notices are

issued even prior to the passing of the half part of the

Award for land, which is not only an apparent

violation of the statutory provisions but also of the

Fundamental right to equality of the petitioners

enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India.

The copies of Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF),

April 2021 and Social Impact Assessment and

Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan prepared in

above said projects are annexed herewith as

Annexure P-34 & P-35.

e) Because the competent authority has completely failed to

decide

objections submitted by the petitioners u/s 3-C(1) and 3-G(3) of the

Act of 1956, in the latter and spirit of statutory provisions and the

Manual of Guidelines, 2018. The detailed objections filed by the

petitioners have been rejected in one line without passing any

speaking order or by Application of mind. No opportunity of hearing

has been granted to the petitioners to hear their grievances/

objections while finalizing this compulsory acquisition process. As

per para 3.4(i) of the Manual of Guidelines, "once the CALA has

settled the objections received by him under section 3C, for which he

must pays orders with regard to each objection or categories of

objections, it is time to issue the Notification under

section 3D of the NH Act, 1956." Needless to say that it is not the
discretion or option with the competent authority to decide

objections or not. Moreover, he is not supposed to reject the

detailed objections filed by the petitioners just in one line. Rather

he is duty bound to decide each and every objection received

by him by passing a speaking order but in the case in hand, the

competent authority has not heard or decided any of the detailed

objections filed by the landowners within prescribed period of time.

Thus no weightage or consideration is given to the genuine

grievances/concerns of the petitioners, the victims of this

compulsory acquisition cum involuntary displacement that is

absolutely in contravention to the letter and spirit of the statutory

provisions of the Acts, rules, guidelines and notifications issued in

this regard. In Bhimavarapi Giridhar Kumar Reddy vs. UOI 86

Others, 2012 6 ALD 58: 2012 6 ALT 651, the Division bench of

Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High court set aside the 3D notification as

non est, because neither opportunity of personal hearing was

afforded to the petitioner before rejecting his objections nor was the

order of objection ever communicated to the petitioner. The Hon'ble

court held that "on account of this illegality, all the proceedings

subsequent to the stage under section 3-C (1) are void and

inoperative and tie fact of publication of a declaration under section

3-D (1) would not cure that fatal infirmity.

In R. Natarajan 86 Ors. Vs. UOI 86 Ors, 2010 6 CTC 337

201 1 2 ML 527, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High

Court, set aside the rejection of objection by the competent

authority and remanded back for reasoned order. In this case, the

3C(2) objection filed by the landowners was disallowed without

passing a reasoned decision, not on the ground that there was no

substance in the objection, rather on the ground that the technical

expert/consultant (NHAI) has already prepared detailed project

report, land acquisition work was started and the project work is

under progress. The objection was also disallowed on the ground

that since the land is acquired for public interest and

compensation is paid under section 3-G of the Act, the objection

so raised is bound to be rejected. The Hon'ble High court held that

although the authority was exercising the statutory duty to invite

objection, hear the parties and take a decision either allowing or

disallowing the objection, the authority was bound to assign valid

reasons (para 18 and 23).

Because the competent authority has not furnished the copy of

remarks rejecting 3-C objections the petitioners/landowners, they

have come to know about the factum of rejection of their

objections in the Notification issued u/s 3-D of the Act of 1956

The petitioners have found a single line mentioned pertaining to

rejection of detailed objections submitted by them within the

prescribed period of time. Although it is not specifically

incorporated in Section 3-C of the Act of 1956 that a copy of the

remarks furnished by CAL should be given to the landowners yet

the principles of natural justice warrant such furnishing of the

copy of remarks to the landowners so as to put forth their case. In

Shanmughn Arts, Science, Technology and Research Academy vs.

Union of India 85 Ors. 2009 (5) MIJ 15S, the Hon'ble Madras

High court has held that non furnishing of a copy of the remarks

rejecting 3C objection to the landowner is fatal and therefore the

matter was remanded back to the CALA for reasoned order and

furnishing, a copy of the rejection after such order to the

landowners.

Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality

while passing the Award for land as it has determined the

compensation of vacant land at first and then award for structures

has been pronounced separately whereby, cost of bricks, cement,

sand, gravel and grit etc. has been assessed. It is a grave violation

not only of First Schedule to the Act of 2013 but also of the

Manual of Guidelines, 2018 issued by the MORTH, Govt. of India

wherein CALA is duty bound to provide the compensation for

structures, and other assets attached to land and buildings along

with compensation for land by passing one common Award. It is

not optional for the competent authority to pass the award in

installments, in contradiction to such provisions of law. Moreover

the respondents are portraying such structural award as a

replacement of the R & R Award which can in no way be a

replacement of the R & R Award because it is just an assessment of

the value of bricks and other construction material not more than

that and is just one component of the compensation package

provided under First schedule of the Act of 2013 that is mentioned

at its step no. 4. The R & R Award provides for complete

rehabilitation and resettlement of the entire project affected

persons/families i.e. not only landowners or proprietors and their

families but every such person who was directly and indirectly

affected due to the acquisition in question. As per second and third

schedules of the Act of 2013, the R & R Award provides a

complete package of benefits and entitlements for the project

affected persons and families.

The legislature while enacting the Act of 2013 has

annexed the First schedule depicting the step-wise calculation of

compensation to remove the entire ambiguities to protect the

interests of landowners. And calculation of compensation for

assets attached to land, trees and buildings is specified at its step

no. 4 which is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 29

of the Act of 2013. But while passing the impugned Award the

competent authority has intentionally skipped Step No. A i.e.,

determination of the value of assets attached to land or building and

proceeded to Step No. S. It is categorically mentioned at Step No. 5

that it has to calculate the Solatium it, at Step No. 5 on the amount

assessed by adding the value of land arrived after applying multiplier

factor with the amount of compensation to be paid for

buildings/structures and trees. The competent authority has made a

willful violation of the statutory provisions.

Moreover as per para 5.8 of the Manual of Guidelines, 2017,

it is mandatory for the competent authority to calculate the

compensation for land by following a set pattern only. As per

Annexure-4 to such guidelines it is specifically mentioned that the

method to calculate the total amount of compensation is to be

followed step-wise. And calculation of compensation for assets

attached to land trees and buildings is specified at its step no. 3,

which is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 29 of the

Act of 2013. Para 5,8 of the said Guidelines is reproduced

hereunder for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court

"5.8 It may be noted that the computation of different

components of the total compensation is in seriatum and

sequential from Section: 26 to Section 30 of the RPICLARR Act,

2013. Keeping the aforesaid opinion of the Ld. Attorney General

in view, and the fact that the payment of amount under Section

30(3) has been prescribed as "In addition..." after the provision for

payment of solatium, it is clarified that it would be payable as a

stand-alone component and shall not count for the purposes of

Multiplication Factor and the Solatium.

It is not optional or discretionary for the competent

authority to follow such step-wise compensation calculation

 method because as per the illustration provided in such

Annexure it is specifically mentioned as its heading "Action

in sequence" making it obligatory for the competent

authority to assess the value of assets attached to the land.

Furthermore a similar provision is also provided in the

Manual of Guidelines, 2018 at its sub-para (iii) of para 3.5.1

wherein the said pattern is provided to be followed in steps.

Similarly at para 3.5.6 iv) of these Guidelines, the method

of calculation of the compensation amount is shown with

the help of an illustration wherein the same set pattern is

reproduced under the title "action in sequence means no

deviation there from is expected. As per para 3.5.4 of the

Manual of Guidelines, 2018, "Apart from determination the

basic market value of the land under acquisition, the CALA

has to take into account the value of assets attached to such

land. These assets may be in the form of built-up structures,

fruit trees, normal trees, any other such assets..."

But it is very unfortunate that the in apparent

violation to such mandatory provisions of law and

guidelines, the CALA has categorically mentioned in the

impugned award foe land dated 06.07.2021 that

compensation for buildings/structures/trees/ fruit bearing

plants/tubewells/any other assets attached to the land will

be announced subsequently. Hence on this ground only

both of the impugned awards deserve to be set aside being

null and void.

h) Because the impugned Supplementary/ Structural Award has

been

passed in a very casual manner. No specific amount has been

shown to be awarded to a particular loss of asset or structure in

acquisition in question. Although one annexure is mentioned to

be attached with this impugned award but despite of applying

 certified copy and making repeated requests, the respondent CALA

has not provided the same.

i)Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality

while passing the Award for land by giving a finding like a civil

court that the land even though converted to residential houses,

commercial shops and other structures is either situated amongst

agricultural fields or being used for agricultural purposes only

thus having only agricultural potential in the present form and

decided to consider all these houses, structures as agricultural

land. This observation by the competent authority to save the skin

of respondent NHA1, is contrary to the revenue record and

Notifications under section 3A & 3D wherein the land of certain

petitioners is shown as Gair mumkin. It is pertinent to mention

here that the competent authority is appointed by the Central Govt.

to calculate the just and fair compensation by determining the

market value of the land subject matter of acquisition in view of

section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is not been vested with the power

or jurisdiction to give finding (as mentioned above) like a civil

court.

The competent authority has apparently violated the

provisions of para 3.13.3 (n) of the Manual of Guidelines 2018

whereby the role and responsibility is imposed upon him to check

that the nature of land reflected in the 3A Notification is as per

Revenue Records. It means whatever nature of the land is reflected

in the revenue records the same should be specified in the 3-A

Notification thus no question of jurisdiction of the competent

authority to change the same arises at all. It can initiate the due

process for such kind of change if any landowner himself files a

claim pertaining to the same and this competence is with him only

prior to the 3D Notification but not after that. According to para

3.4(v) of these guidelines, if the competent authority has found

that the nature of land in revenue record is not in accordance with

the 3-A or 3-D then such a mistake can be remedied by issuing a

corrigendum by MORTH. The said Guidelines provide that any

such inconsistency need to be urgently brought to the notice of the

Ministry by CALA through the concerned officers of the

implementing agencies for issuing the required corrigendum in

time but certainly before determination of market value by the

CALA. It means if any kind of inconsistency is there, CALA

himself is not competent to change the recorded nature of land and

the Ministry by issuing a corrigendum can do the needful before

the determination of compensation by the CALA. Here in the case

in hand, the nature of land is apparently recorded as pair-mumkin

house in the revenue record of the land, but in the impugned

Award that nature of the land has been changed by the competent

authority which is bad in the eyes of law.

Furthermore, para 3.5.3(x) of such Manual of Guidelines,

provides that once the stage of section 3-D has been crossed, the

CALA would not have the liberty to allow such change in the

nature/category of land, unless so directed by a Court of Law.

Thus the competent authority has exceeded its jurisdiction

because he cannot sit to examine the potential or non-potential of

any property rather he is duty bound to pass the Award as per

recorded nature of the land subject matter of acquisition. This sole

illegality committed by the competent authority is sufficient to set

aside the Award in question.

Because the competent authority has also given an anarchist

observation that some of the properties consist of homesteads i.e.,

houses built over agricultural land and surrounded by agricultural

fields and are as such situated away from the village settlement.
 This is isolated use of agricultural land for residential or

agricultural purpose building area which has only

agricultural potential in the present form.

In view of the above stated guidelines, it is

completely unlawful for the competent authority to give

such observation by exceeding its jurisdiction. It is quite

surprising that under which capacity the competent

authority has given such kind of arbitrary observation

because this authority is not at all established to change

the recorded nature of the land rather the authority has

to determine the compensation obliging the recorded

and real facts pertaining to nature of land, existence of

residential houses, shops and keeping in view the present

use of land, so that justice could be done with the poor

landowners.

Moreover, this Hon'ble Court is well versed with the

fact that whenever a new residential colony or a commercial

market comes into existence or is established in Haryana it is

always established on the agricultural land or we can say is

surrounded by the agricultural fields, it doesn't mean that that

colony or market is having an agricultural potential only not

fetching residential or commercial value or rates. Even

Chandigarh one of the most costliest cities is established on

and is surrounded by agricultural fields it does not mean that

it's not having any commercial potential. Thus both of the

impugned awards are not only void, illegal, arbitrary but

contrary and violative to the statutory provisions of the laws

and rules governing acquisition in question.

k) Because the respondents have failed to depict true nature of the

property in question i.e., Gair-mumkin house under the head of

nature of property in the 3-A & 3-D Notifications which is

contrary to the relevant revenue record of the land in

 question i.e., Khasra Girdawaries. Copies of the Khasra

Girdawaries are annexed herewith as Annexure P-21. Despite of the

fact that specific objections pertaining to the same have been given

by the petitioners in the objections submitted us 3-C of the Act of

1956, the respondent NHAI has not bothered to correct the same in

the 3-D Notification. As such the entire acquisition proceeding all

the subsequent proceedings including issuance of Notification us 3-

D undertaken in pursuance of such incorrect and wrong Notification,

deserve to be declared null and void. It is a well settled proposition

of law that if the initial Notification under section 3-A is not in

accordance with law it renders all the subsequent steps invalid.

When the foundation goes, rest of the edifice falls, In Madhya

Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shan 86 Ors (1992) 2 SCC 168,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it if a Notification is defective

and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it is not only

vitiates the Notification but also renders all subsequent proceedings

connected with the acquisition bad.

In a similar case titled Muthalit vs. The Special

'Tehsildar, Harijan Welfare, Devakaottai 86 Ors. 1985 11MLJ 237,

the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that in case there is a

serious discrepancy between description of the land in the

Notification under section 4(1) and Declaration under section 6 of

the Land acquisition Act, 1894 and such discrepancy has caused

prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire acquisition

proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

1) Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality

by issuing the public notice u/s 3-E of the Act of 1956 on

24.08.2021 which is even prior to passing the half portion of the

Award for land i.e., the Structural Award. The competent authority
 has apparently violated the statutory provisions of section 3-B of

the Act of 1956 which provides that when the amount determined

by the competent authority u/s 3-G with respect to such land has

been deposited u/s 3-H(1) with the competent authority by the

Central Govt., the competent authority can direct the owner as

well as any other person who is in possession of the land to

surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority.

Surprisingly no compensation for displacement for the same is

provided till date then how the respondents are issuing such kind

of notices to the petitioners. As such gross violation of the

mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 is prevalent thus seeking

immediate indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. This sole illegality is

sufficient to quash all the acquisition proceedings in question. This

Hon'ble court may kindly take cognizance of this deliberate

violation of the statutory provisions and ask the respondent CALA

that how the possession notice can be issued before passing the

Award for land in entirety. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 also

filed a petition/objection under Section 3H(4) of the Act, the

contents of the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of

brevity however copy of the same duly received on dated

23.02.2021 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector/NHAI is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-36.

m) Because the competent authority has willfully/intentional missed

to pass the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in view of

section 31, 38(1) and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 and

provide the infrastructural amenities to the petitioners. The act of

passing structural award by the respondent competent authority is

an endorsement of the fact that structures are existing on the land

in question. Despite of the same, respondent has deliberately

ignored provisions of the Notification dated 28.08.2015, letter

 dated 11.09.2015 issued by Central Government and the Act of

2013. Not only this, respondent competent authority had not

categorically mentioned and clarified in the award passed for land

or in the structural award that the structures situated on the land

under acquisition are residential houses etc. with malafide

intention to reduce compensation as well as other benefits which

are mandatorily required to be provided as per provisions of the

Act of 2013. Moreover detailed objections and claims have been

submitted again and again by adducing sufficient evidence before

the competent authority to prove that entire residential properties

and structures of the petitioners are going to be demolished due to

this acquisition in question as such they are going to be displaced

in the absence of any other alternative accommodation to reside.

Hence the request was made to pass the R 8v R Award and make

provision for infrastructural amenities in the resettlement area. But

the respondents have failed to comply with the mandate of sections

31(1), 32, 38, 105(3) of the Act of 2013, the provisions of manual

of guidelines of 2017 and 2108 and notification issued by the

Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India dated 28 08.2015.

As such non-passing of the R & R Award and nondisclosure of

existence of residential houses and shops is a deliberate

misconduct on the part of respondents thus rendering the

entire acquisition process infructuous attracting the penal

liability for the respondents.

n) Because none of components mentioned in the second schedule

relating to rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements has either

been paid or tendered by respondent competent authority and

after passing the structural award is going to take possession of

the land and structures. In met the rehabilitation and

resettlements award has not been passed at all so the question of

 payment does not arise at all which is sheer violation of the

mandatory provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 2013. Section

38(1) provides that the Collector shall take possession of land after

ensuring that full payment of the compensation as well as

rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to

the entitled persons within a period of 3 months for the

compensation and a period of 6 months for monetary part of

rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in Second

Schedule commencing from the date of the award.

Moreover as per section 38(2) of the Act of 2013 the

collector is duty bound to ensure that the rehabilitation and

resettlement process is completed in all respects before displacing

the affected families.

o) Because no any demarcation or measurement has been made by

the respondents to ascertain the detailed description of structures

in question. It is also not taken into consideration that if some

portion of the houses, rooms or other structures stood acquired

then at the time of demolishing and taking possession such half

portion will make the entire structures non-livable or non usable

due to cracks or disfigurement of that portion. Hence such portion

of the structures which is not even a subject matter of acquisition

will be affected drastically causing a huge loss to the petitioners.

As per section 26 to 30 and First Schedule of the Act of 2013, in

case of partial impact, 25% additional award to be paid on

compensation award for the affected part of the structure to enable

damage repair where the owner/ occupier of his/her own is

interested to retain the remaining part of the structure provided

the unimpaired continuous use of such structure is possible

without hazards (as a provision is made in the SIA (P.) for similar
 situated persons). No compensation for such kind of incidental losses

has been provided. The provision for such losses is actually made in

the R 8; R Award when die R 8; R Award has not been passed

deliberately then obviously the petitioners are kept away from such

benefits. Even in the future there is no any kind of readiness/

preparation and willingness on the part of respondents to pass such

Award.

10) Because both of the impugned awards are very questionable as

they have been passed secretly without any intimation and

information to the petitioners. The petitioners has never ever been

called or informed by the respondents while pronouncing the

impugned award for land which is not only against the law laid down

by the various High Court but also contrary to the mandate of the Act

of 2013 and the Manual of Guidelines, 2018.

q) Because the respondents have failed to provide the alternative

constructed residential houses and infrastructural amenities to

petitioners in view section 31, 32, 38 and 105(3) and Second and

Third schedule of the Act of 2013 in lieu of the houses and

structures so acquired but are going to take possession of the land

and fully furnished structures of the petitioners without passing the

R 8; R Award and providing the infrastructural amenities. Thus

there is an apparent violation of the procedure prescribed under the

Act of 2013 by virtue of which the respondent competent authority

or HAI cannot take possession of the acquired land without making

the payment of monetary compensation and rehabilitation/

resettlement entitlements of the acquired land. As such specific

instructions are required to be passed by this Hon'ble Court

prohibiting dispossession of petitioners from the

lan

un

der

acq

uisi

tio

unt

il

and

unl

ess

all

the

stat

uto

ry

ben

efit

and

ent

itle

me

nts

are

pro

vid

ed

to

the

m
 by

the

erri

ng

res

po

nde

nts.

r) Be

ca

us

co

pet

ent

aut

ho

rit

vi

ola

ted

the

ma

nd

ato

ry

gu

ide

lin

es
iss

ue

by

the

Mi

nis

try

of

Ro

ad

Tr

an

sp

ort

an

Hi

gh

wa

ys,

Go

ve

rn

me

nt

of

In

dia

in

De
ce

be

20

18

wh

ich

vi

de

its

pa

ra

2.

13

(1)

pr

ov

ide

tha

the

co

pet

ent

aut

ho

rit

y
wh

ile

an

no

un

cin

the

wa

rd

4/

3G

of

the

Ac

of

19

56

sh

all

ap

pe

nd

cer

tifi

cat

at
the

en

of

the

ir /

he

wa

rd

tha

he/

sh

ha

str

ict

ly

fol

lo

we

the

leg

al

pr

ov

isi

on
s

an

gu

ide

lin

es

in

det

er

mi

nat

io

of

the

co

pe

ns

ati

on

am

ou

nt.

Bu

the

co

pet

ent
aut

ho

rit

ha

wi

llf

ull

vi

ola

ted

thi

ma

nd

ato

ry

pr

ov

isi

on

by

no

pa

ssi

ng

the

wa
rd

in

qu

est

io

in

str

ict

co

pli

an

ce

to

thi

s.

It

ha

als

co

mi

tte

da

gr

av

ill

eg
ali

ty

by

ap

pe

nd

in

the

fal

se

cer

tifi

cat

at

the

en

of

the

wa

rd

tha

the

co

pe

ns

ati
on

ha

be

en

det

er

mi

ne

in

ac

co

rd

an

ce

wi

th

the

pr

ov

isi

on

of

Ac

t,

19

56

,
the

Ac

of

20

13

rea

wi

th

ext

ant

gu

ide

lin

es

iss

ue

by

the

Mi

nis

try

of

Ro

ad

Tr

an

sp

ort
 an

Hi

gh

wa

ys,

in

fur

the

ra

nc

the

re

of.

s) Be

ca

us

co

pet

ent

aut

ho

rit

ha

co

m
mi

tte

an

ap

pa

re

nt

vi

ola

tio

of

the

pr

ov

isi

on

of

pr

ov

iso

to

se

cti

on

26

of

the

Ac

t
20

13

wh

ich

pr

ov

ide

tha

the

Co

lle

cto

sh

all

be

for

ini

tia

tio

of

an

lan

ac

qu
isi

tio

pr

oc

ee

di

ng

in

an

are

a,

tak

all

ne

ce

ssa

ry

ste

ps

to

re

vis

an

up

dat

e
the

ma

rk

et

val

ue

of

the

lan

on

the

ba

sis

of

the

pr

ev

ale

nt

ma

rk

et

rat

in

tha

are

a.

Bu

t
the

co

pet

ent

aut

ho

rit

th

us

no

fol

lo

we

thi

ma

nd

ato

ry

pr

ov

isi

on

in

its

let

ter

an
 d

spi

rit.

t) Be

ca

us

co

pet

ent

aut

ho

rit

ha

als

vi

ola

ted

the

pr

ov

isi

on

of

se

cti
on

30

(2)

of

the

Ac

of

20

13

as

he

ha

fai

led

to

iss

ue

in

di

vi

du

al

wa

rds

det

ail

in

the
pa

rti

cul

ars

of

co

pe

ns

ati

on

pa

ya

ble

an

det

ail

of

the

pa

me

nt

co

pe

ns

ati

on

as
sp

eci

fie

in

Fir

st

Sc

he

du

le.

or

eo

ve

on

cu

ula

tiv

rea

di

ng

of

pr

ov

isi

on

of
se

cti

on
 3E, 30, 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 and section 30(2)

and 38(1) of the Act of 2013, this Hon'ble Court will observe that

the Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars

of compensation payable and the details of payment of the

compensation as specified in the First Schedule but the competent

authority has completely failed to do so.

u) Because competent authority has committed a illegality by

adopting an impartial criteria while accessing the amount of

compensation for structures as the petitioner whose more area has

been acquired is provided less amount of compensation and the

one whose less are has been acquired is provided more amount of

compensation. This only fact is sufficient to prove that the

respondent competent authority is unaware of the ground reality

for the obvious reason that no survey has been conducted before

initiating acquisition process in question.

v) Because competent authority has failed to determine the market

value of the land of petitioners in violation to the provisions of

section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is do hereby clarified that

prevailing market price for land in question is more than 50 crore

per acre. The competent authority was duty bound to determine the

average sale price of the land of petitioners in view of collector

rates for the similar type of property of city Gurugram abutting

boundary/had bast of village of the petitioners as such comes with

definition of nearest vicinity area. This claim of the petitioner is

substantiated by the statutory provision prescribed under section

26(1) b of the Act of 2013 which provides that the average sale

price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or

vicinity area. It is shocking that how the competent authority has

determined market value at rate of Rs. 5,96,29,041 per acre.

w) Because respondents have failed to make any alternative

arrangement for the shelter and sources of livelihood of the poor

petitioners and their families who have lost their only residential

houses and sources of income which is a sheer violation of the

procedure prescribed by law. As such there is an apparent

violation of the right to life and personal liberty of the petitioners

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India It is very

pertinent to mention here that due to this acquisition in question,

the petitioners and their families have been rendered jobless and

displaced/homeless. It would not be out of place to mention here

that on 24.03.2022 an application dated 11.10.2021 was got

received by the petitioners to Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram

praying therein that either appropriate compensation as per market

rate should be paid by NHAI or a house be given and petitioners

may kindly be saved from being homeless/ shelter less. The copy

of application dated 11.10.2021 duly received on 24.03.2022 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-37.

x) Because respondents have committed a violation of the legal Right

to Property of the petitioners and their families enshrined under

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No doubt as per the

doctrine of eminent domain, the sovereign has power to acquire the

private property of its citizen but it has to follow the procedure

prescribed by law. But in the case of this instant acquisition wherein

the poor petitioners/landowners/ proprietors belonging to Scheduled

caste and backward class families have lost their precious residential

and commercial properties, their only source of shelter and

livelihood, no lawful procedure has been followed to provide

compensation, benefits and entitlements to them to which they are

lawfully entitled. As such this act and conduct of the

respondents has infringed the Constitutional right to property of the

petitioner.

The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it

is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

In view of law laid by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hari Krishna Mandir 'Trust

vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2013, D/d.

7.8.2020 (Law finder Doc Id » 1735655):

"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any

longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a

human right as observed by this Court in "Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v.

Vatslaven Ashokbhai Patel and Others (2008) 4 SCC 649 (para 42)". In

view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no

person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The

appellant trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance

with law."

"97. Article 300A of the Constitution of India embodies the

doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) be possession

of property in the public interest; and (il) payment of reasonable

compensation. As held by this Court in plethora of decisions, including

State of Bihar and Others v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and

Others (2006 2 SCC 545, 574 (para 69); Jelubhai Nanbhai Khachar and

Others v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 596; Bishambhar

Dayal Chandra Mohan and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

(1982) 1 SCC 39, the State possesses the power to take or control the

property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so

acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as

 held by this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and

Others (2007) 7 SCC S55 (paras 55 and 56)."

"100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of Indie, not only have the power to

issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are

duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a

public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised

discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy

decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion

malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.

"101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of

Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an

appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the

Government or a public authority."

y) Because respondents have violated fundamental right to equality

of petitioners and their families as enshrined under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

z) Because competent authority has failed to award any compensation

for marginal portion of the land of some of the petitioners which is

left un-acquired. It will not be practical or possible for the

petitioners to use this portion of land in any economical/ beneficial

way or to sell the same. Thus it will be a big problem for them to

use such land. In view of the guidelines issued by the MORTH, the

competent authority was duty bound to award compensation for

such remaining part of the land or award 25% of actual value upto

of the remaining land holding as additional compensation,

allowing the owner to retain the remaining marginal portion of

land, if agreeable. But both of the impugned awards are silent

about the same.

 That it is worthwhile to bring into the notice of this

lon'ble court that the CALAs in the entire state of Haryana are

indulged in practice of passing Awards for land sans

compensation for buildings, structures, trees and other fixed assets

and thereafter they pass the structural awards portraying them as

R & R Awards with malafide intention to deceit the innocent and

helpless landowners. In this present case also, the impugned

Award has been passed by the competent authority by assessing

the value of land only as no compensation for structures have been

included in that. Now as per this prevalent practice, the authority

will pass the structural award so that the respondents can escape

from their duty to pass the R & R Award. For which the

respondents are liable for penal action in view of section 84(3), 85

and 87 of the Act of 2013.

Section 84(3) of the Act of 2013 provides that

"Disciplinary proceedings may be drawn up by the disciplinary

authority against a Government servant, who if proved to be guilty

of a malafide action in respect of any provision of this Act, shall be

liable to such punishment including a fine as the disciplinary

authority may decide.

Section "85. Penalty for Contravention of Provisions of Act: If

any person contravenes any of the provisions relating to payment of

compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement, every such person

shall be liable to a punishment of six months which may extend to

three years or with fine or with both."

Section "87. Offences by Government Departments- (I)

Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any

department of the Government, the head of the department, shall

 be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be

proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render

any person liable to any punishment if such person proves that

the offence was committed without his knowledge or that such

person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of

such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1),

where any offence under this Act has been committed by a

Department of the Government and it is proved that the offence

has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is

attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer, other than the

head of the department, such officer shall also be deemed to be

guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against

and punished accordingly.

Hence to halt this illegal practice of non passing of R & R

Award and not providing the other entitlements and benefits even in

such cases where there is an apparent displacement of the project

affected families, immediate indulgence of this Hon'ble Court is need

of the hour. No other authority except this writ court is well

competent to stop this practice by passing the strict orders.

25. That there cannot be any dispute that the power of the High
Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature

of Habeas Corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition

under Article 226 of the Constitution is the basic feature of the

Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliament legislature, hence in

the exercise of the powers vested under Article 226, the High Court

can entertain a writ against any order passed by or action taken by the

State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or

quasi/judicial body/authority. Even in cases, where an effective

alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved persons it will not be a

bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of

the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the

principle of natural justice or if the order under challenge is wholly

without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge.

In view of law laid by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hari Krishna

Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 6156 of

2013, D/d. 7.8.2020 (Law finder Doc Id # 1735055),

" 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ

of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to

exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has

failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by

a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has

exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.

"101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of

Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and

lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public

authority.

104. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain

a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the

petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In

a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues

both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true,

discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial

principles. Reference may be made inter alia to the judgments of this

Court Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Batinda and State of

Kerala v. M.K Jose. In M. K. Jose (supra), this Court held:

11. (1969) 3 SCC 769 12 (2015) 9 SCC 433 "16. Having referred to the

aforesaid decisions, it is obligatory on our part to refer to two other

authorities of this Court where it has been opined that under what

circumstances a disputed question of fact can be gone into. In Ounwant

Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda ((1969) 3 SCC 769) , it has been

held thus. (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) "14. The High Court observed that

they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But

what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be

determined after an affidavit-in-reply was fied by the State. The High

Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High

Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under

Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief

questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article

226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.

Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion

must be exercised on sound judicial principles.

A Constitution Bench of Hon ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs.

Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, has held that "the Judges of the
superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the
Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it. It
is they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the
Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive

de not, in the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional

limitations. It is equally their duty to oversee that the judicial decisions

rendered by those who man the subordinate courts and tribunals do not

fall foul of strict standards of legal correctness and judicial

independence. The constitutional safeguards which ensure the

independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary are not available to

the Judges of the subordinate judiciary or to those who man tribunals

created by ordinary legislations Consequently, Judges of the latter

category can never be considered full and effective substitutes for the
superior judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional

interpretation We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over

legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential

feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure."

In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is well-settled that the power of

superintendence conferred on the High Court administrative as well as

judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person

aggrieved or may even be exercised suo-motu. The paramount

consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the

High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles

therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on

the High Court by Article 226 in that the power of superintendence is not

subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are

to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the

exercise of power are almost similar.

In Umaji Kesha Meshraram & others v. Radhikabai W/O Anandrao

Banapurkar 8v Ani., 1986 SCR (1) 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that the power under Article 227 may be exercised in cases

occasioning, grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (;) the

court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (I)

has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure

occasioning a failure of justice and (ill) the jurisdiction though available

is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping limits

of jurisdiction.

In the present case the competent authority has not only failed to

exercise a jurisdiction which it does have re, to pass the Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Award in view of Second and Third Schedules of the Act

of 2013, such failure is a failure of justice but has also exercised the

jurisdiction in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of

jurisdiction i.e., by arbitrarily changing the nature of land.

A Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Bakul

Debnath Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. (2008) 2 OLR 19, held that the

framers of the Constitution had conferred unfettered powers to every

High Court of the country by way of inserting Articles 226, 227 and 228,

without making then subject to any law to be made by the appropriate

legislature, and had put these Articles beyond the legislative reach of the

Parliament and the State Legislatures with the result that the jurisdiction

conferred by the aforesaid Articles can only be curtailed or executed

with respect to any matter by constitutional amendment and not by other

ordinary legislation and/or in other way whatever may be the mode.

Now, if the aforesaid Articles can be considered as a part of the basic

feature of the Constitution that cannot also be amended even by the

Parliament. The reason behind this is that the framers of the Constitution

considered that the people/citizens of the Nation be armed with certain

powers to seek justice and for that purpose, the Constitution vested the

High Courts with wide power of judicial review under Article 226 and

power of judicial supervision and superintendence under Article 227

which enables the Court to act suo motu in the interest of justice. As the

power is directly derived from the Constitution, which is the basic

source and mother of all laws and statutes in the republic, the power

given to High Court is sacred duty on it so as to enable to administer

justice to the citizen (a) without any compromise. Such power is given to

the people to get proper justice from the High Court in appropriate cases

and duty of the Court is to nullify injustice to protect and provide justice

More so, if a Tribunal while acting even within its jurisdiction makes an

error of law, which it reveals on the face

of its recorded determination, then the Court in exercise of its

supervisory function may correct the error unless there is some provision

in the statute itself preventing by a review by a Court of law.

Moreover it is also pertinent to mention that once it is proved that the

activity undertaken by the authority has a public element then regardless of

the form of such authority it would be subjected to the rigor of writ

jurisdiction of Artiele 226 of the Constitution. The emphasis is always on

activity undertaken and the nature of duty imposed on such authority to

perform and not the form of such authority.

In Dr. Janet Jayapaul Y SRM University and Ors., MR 2016 SC 73,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that -20. The term "authority"

used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike

the term in Article 12. Article 12 in relevant only for the purpose of

enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers

power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the

fundamental rights as well as non- fundamental rights. The words "any

person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined

only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may

cover any other person or body performing public duty The form of the

body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature

of the duty imposed. The duty must be judged in the light of positive

obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No

matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists

mandamus cannot be denied. SLP No. 11208 of 2015"

Thus in view of the above submissions, it is most humbly

submitted that this Hon'ble Court has every kind of competence

and jurisdiction to intervene and redress the grievances of the poor

petitioners who are running from pillar to post to get implement

the mandatory statutory provisions of beneficial legislation but no

 r,

respondent authority is paying heed to comply with the same and are

adamant to follow the procedure which they were following under the

colonial legislation, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

26. That the petitioners do not hrve any alternative remedy

available to them because they are before this Hon'ble Court not for

enhancement of the amount of compensation but are challenging the

entire acquisition proceedings in question, as such they can't be

asked to avail the remedy under section 3G(5). The accompanied

writ petition has been preferred in legs: and fair manner with cogent

and legal reason in the absence of any alternative remedy to get enforce

the statutory provisions except instant writ petition under Article 226/

227 of the Constitution of India. It is most humbly submitted that this

Hon ble court only have the jurisdiction, competence, authority and

power to direct the respondents to do the needful and follow the

appropriate course of action as alleged by the petitioners and the

Arbitrator has neither the jurisdiction/capacity/authority to pass the R8s

R Award nor can he direct the competent authority to pays the same

under any of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 or any other legislation. Similarly, 10 any other

court/tribunal/judicial or quasi-judicial authority have the

authority/capacity/jurisdiction to pass such directions. Hence on this

ground alone this writ petition is maintainable

Moreover the application under section 3(G)5 of the National

Highways Act, 1956 cannot be construed as alternative remedy because:

i) Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways, 1956, very

unambiguously provides that if the amount determined by

the competent authority under sub. section (1) or sub-

section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the

amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be

 determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central

Government. No entitlements and benefits which the petitioners

are entitled as per second and third schedules of the Act of 2013

has been granted till date so the question of acceptance or non-

acceptance of amount determined by competent authority under

sub section 1 and sub section 2 of 3(G) does not arise at all.

Needless to mention that until and unless something has not been

granted (R & R Award is not passed) at all then no question to

approach the arbitrator for enhancement arises as per the

provisions of law. If the R & R Award so passed by the

competent authority would seem to petitioners on lower side, the

landowners/ petitioners will approach the arbitrator for its

enhancement. If it is not passed at all then no question to

approach the arbitrator arises as per the provisions of law.

ii) In view of section 31(1) of the Act of 2013, the collector/competent

authority is duty bound to pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Award prior to taking the possession and demolishing of structures.

The provisions of section 31(1) are hereby reproduced: "31.

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for affected families by

Collector.-

(1) The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation andResettlement

Awards for cach affected families in terms of the entitlements

provided in the Second Schedule.

XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

iii) Thus it is collector or competent authority that will pass the R & R

Award not Arbitrator. In view of section 3(H)1 National Highways

Act and 38 of Act of 2013, possession of the property subject matter

of acquisition cannot be taken

without making compensation and as well as Rehabilitation and

Resettlement entitlements are paid. Further as per section 38(2) of

the Act of 2013 the collector is duty bound to ensure that the
 rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all respects

before displacing the affected families. As per sub section (1) of

section 38 of the Act, it is mandatory that collector shall take

possession of land only after paying full compensation as well as

rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered.

Therefore it is the CALA or the collector not the arbitrator who

will finalize the whole process of providing the rehabilitation and

resettlement entitlements to the petitioners. As the CALA has

completely failed to do therefore directions are required for the

enforcement of the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that

there is no any such provision under the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, the National Highways Act, 1956 or the

Act of 2013 empowering the Arbitrator to direct the competent

authority to pass the R & R Award. It is only this Hon'ble Court

having the jurisdiction and competence to issue such directions.

Thus there is no point to avail the remedy u/ s 3-G.

iv) If by disbursing the compensation in view of impugned

award, the respondents would take possession by demolishing

residential houses, shops, workshops and other the structures of

the petitioners then from where and how the respondents would

pass the R & R award. During that time where the petitioners

would reside and earn their livelihood which would not only

amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act of2013 but also

of fundamental right to shelter and livelihood. In view of these

submissions, this
Hon'ble Court being custodian of the Indian Constitution not

the arbitrator U/s 3-G(5) has to protect such constitutional

rights of the petitioners and redress their genuine grievances.

Furthermore, the Award dated 06.07.2021 is void-ab-initio

as it has not been passed in view of First Schedule and the

Manual of Guidelines, 2017 issued by MORTH wherein it is

mandatory for the competent authority to calculate the

compensation for land by following the prescribed set

pattern only and it is specifically mentioned that the method

to calculate the total amount of compensation is to be

followed step-wise. But the competent authority has not

followed the same.

Secondly, the respondent competent authority has passed the

above said impugned Award by ignoring the real and

recorded nature of the land in question. Moreover one

combined award for the land of all the petitioners against the

mandate of section 30(2) of the Act of 2013 which

prescribes that the collector shall issue individual awards.

Similarly there are number of other illegalities as mentioned

in the preceding para Thus in view of all such illegalities

particularly Award contemplated under First Schedule (read

with section 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013) is passed in

apparent contradiction to the latter and spirit of the said

provisions of the Act then only this Hon'ble Court not the

arbitrator can issue directions to the competent authority to

pass the Award afresh. The arbitrator can only adjudicate

upon the excess or inadequacy of the amount granted by the

competent authority.
 v) It is not the only and first case wherein the respondents have

failed to pass the rehabilitation and resettlement award rather

it is the usual practice of the competent authorities (in

connivance with the respondent NHAI) all over the state of

Punjab that only Award for land sometimes for structures is

passed and no heed is paid to pass R & R Award. When

violation of provisions of a central beneficial legislation is

prevalent on a mass level then no other forum than this

Hon'ble court has the prerogative to mend the same and

ensure its complete compliance.

Furthermore, it is a well settled proposition of law enunciated

by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even in cases, where an

effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved

persons it will not be a bar to the entertaining of writ petition

filed:

i. For the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights

or

ii. where there has been a violation of the principle of

natural justice or

iii in. where the order under challenge is wholly without

jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under

challenge.

In the case of Miss Maneck Custodi Surjari Vs. Sarafazali Nawabali

Mirza, AIR 1976 SC 2446, the Apex Court held that the well-settled

principle that the High Court does not ordinarily, in exercise of its

discretion, entertain a special civil application under Art. 227 of the

Constitution where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the

applicant, is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary

circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the

High Court may interfere in favor of an applicant.

Recently in Balkrishna Ram v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 2020

SC 341, the Supreme Court of India has held that even when alternative

remedy is available, High court can exercise Writ jurisdiction. The

principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ

jurisdiction when an elicacious alternative remedy is available, is a rule

of prudence and not a rule of law. The writ courts normally refrain from

exercising their extraordinary power if the petitioner has an alternative

efficacious remedy. The existence of such remedy however does not

mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted.

In State of U.P, and others v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. AIR 1977

SC 1132, the Hon'ble Court has held that there is no rule of law that the

High Court should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative

remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the

Court.

In Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India 86 Ors.,

2019(10) Scale 67, the Hon 'ble Apex court has held that the mere

existence of alterative forums where the aggrieved party may secure

relief does not create a legal bar on a High court to exercise its writ

jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High

court amongst several factors.

It is most humbly submitted that it is the best case to intervene

wherein there is not only an apparent violation of the legal and

constitutional rights of the petitioners but the principles of natural

justice as well.
27. That the whole relief of the petitioners claimed in this writ

petition is grounded on the philosophy, introduction and statement of objects

and reasons of this Act, relevant part of which is as follows:

i) There was no central law to adequately deal with the issues of

rehabilitation and resettlements of displaced persons. As land

acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlements were

41

two sides of the same coin, a single integrated law to deal with

the issues of land acquisition and rehabilitation and

resettlements was necessary. Hence the proposed legislation

(The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlements Act, 2013)

proposes to address the concerns of farmers and those whose

livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired.

ii) There is an imperative need to recognize rehabilitation and

resettlements issues as intrinsic to the development process

formulated with the active participation of affected persons and

families. The plight of those who do not have rights over the

land on which they are critically dependent for their subsistence

is even worse.

iii) To ensure comprehensive compensation package for the

land owners a scientific method for calculation of the market

value of the land has been proposed. Market value

calculated will be multiplied by a factor of two in rural

areas. Solatium will also be increased upto 100 percent of

the total compensation.

iv) Comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement package for

land owners including subsistence allowance, jobs, house,

transportation allowance and resettlement allowance

proposed.
 v) Twenty-five infrastructural amenities are proposed to be

provided in the resettlement area including schools and play

grounds, health centers, roads and electric connections,

assured sources of safe drinking water, Panchayat Ghars,

Anganwadis, places of worship, burial and cremation

grounds, village level post onices, fair price shops and seed-

cum-fertilizers storage facilities.

vi) Stringent and comprehensive penalties both for companies

and Government in cases of false information, mala fide

action and contravention of the provisions of the proposed

legislation have been provided.

28. That it is pertinent to mention here that the agricultural land of

villages Dhanas and Daddumajra stood acquired for construction of PR-4

road in 2018-19 in which the LAC, UT Chandigarh has passed a detailed

R 86 R award even though no structure or super structure was existing on

the land subject matter of such acquisition. The UT Administration has

pronounced Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award following the

procedure prescribed under the Act of 2013 and as such granted

compensation @Rs. S lacs as choice of annuity or onetime payment and

further, Rs. 50,000/- as one time re-settlement even the agricultural land

was acquired but the instant case is much more better than the same

where residential houses of the petitioners have been acquired. Therefore

the petitioners/landowners are claiming parity to the landowners of those

villages. Copy of R 86 R is annexed herewith as Annexure P-38.

29. That the following questions of law arise for determination by

this Hon'ble Court:

i. Whether the act and conduct of respondents MORTFI, Govt. of

India and NHAl initiating the acquisition proceedings

 without framing any Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Scheme/Policy for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the

displaced and affected petitioners and their families, is

lawful?

ii. Whether the act and conduct of respondents MORTH, Govt.

of India and NHAl initiating the acquisition proceedings

without publishing any Social Impact Assessment Report

ascertaining the impacts of the project in question, is lawful?

iii. Whether the act and conduct of the respondent MORTH, Govt.

of India and NHAI, not framing the Rehabilitation and

Resettlement policy/ Scheme and Social Impact Assessment

Report on the lines of RPF and SI Report prepared for similar

situated persons affected in the other projects undertaken by

the respondent NHAI, amounts to discrimination and

infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and

their families enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution

of India?

iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get all the benefits and

entitlement provided to the above stated similar situated

persons on the basis of parity?

v. Whether the act and conduct of competent authority/

collector initiating the acquisition proceedings without

updating and revising the market value of the land on the

basis of prevalent market rate in that area (as

contemplated in second last proviso to section 26 of the

Act of 2013), is justifiable?

vi. Whether the act and conduct of respondent competent

authority passing the Award for land and structures in

installments in contravention to the set formula prescribed

 by First Schedule of the Act of 2013 and the Manual of

Guidelines, 2017, is lawful?

vii. Whether the competent authority has jurisdiction to

determine and grant agricultural rates for the residential

houses and other structures of the petitioners?

viii. Whether the competent authority has failed determine the

market value of land strictly as per provisions of section 26 of

the Act of 2013 and the collector rates sale deeds of similar

type of residential, Gair-mumkin, commercial land situated in

the nearest village and vicinity?

ix. Whether Competent authority has jurisdiction/competence to

record a finding like civil court that the residential structures

constructed on and surrounded by agricultural land is an

agricultural property?

x. Whether competent authority has jurisdiction to ascertain

the potential of land as agricultural despite of the existing

residential house, shops, trees and other structures

supported by revenue record?

xi. Whether the competent authority has any jurisdiction to

record a finding that particular land has no commercial

potential?

xii. Whether the act and conduct of respondents for not

considering and deciding the objections/claims filed by the

petitioners 4/s 3 C (1) 85 3 D of the Act of 1956 by passing

speaking order leads to quashing of the entire acquisition

proceedings in question?

xiii. Whether act and conduct of respondent competent authority for

not passing rehabilitation and resettlement Award does not

amount to an apparent violation of the provisions of

 section 31, 38 and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013, the

Notification dated 28.08.2015 and Letter dated 11.09.2015?

xiv. Whether the act and conduct of respondent competent

authority of not making provision of basic amenities in the

resettled area does not amount to an apparent violation of the

provisions of section 32, 38 and Third Schedule of the Act of

2013?

xv. Whether the respondents have any authority to take

possession of land without determining and disbursing

compensation for land and structures in view of First

Schedule to the Act of 2013 and granting rehabilitation,

resettlement entitlements in violation to section 31, 32, 38

and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 and section 3(H)1,

3H(2) of Act of 1956 and Circulars, Letters, Notifications,

Memos and Corrigendum issued in this regard?

xvi. Whether the act and conduct of the respondents not providing

the constructed houses and other structures in lieu of the

acquired houses and structures of the petitioners in

contravention to the provisions of the Act of 2013, is

infringement of the fundamental right to shelter of the

petitioners and their families enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India?

xvii. Whether the respondent NHAI has any jurisdiction or

competence to demolish the residential houses and other

structures of the petitioners without compliance with First,

Second and Third schedules of the Act of 2013?

xviii. Whether the respondents are bound by the

provisions/conditions incorporated in RPF and SIA

conducted for NH -707 and other projects ie., possession of

land subject matter of acquisition cannot be taken without

 passing R 86 R Award and entitlements, in the case of this

acquisition also?

xix. Whether the act and conduct of the respondents acquiring the

land and properties of the petitioners without following the

due procedure of law infringement of the Constitutional

right to property of the petitioners and their families

enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India?

xx. Whether acts of the respondents are in violation to the principles

of Natural Justice?

xxi. Whether acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are in

violation to the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National

Highways Rules, 1957?

xxii. Whether acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are in

violation to section 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 105(3) of the

Right to Pair Compensation and Transparency Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

xxiii. Whether the respondent authorities had acted in violation to

the intention of fair compensation, rehabilitation,

resettlement policy as framed by the Union of India and

specifically made applicable to National Highway Land

acquisition cases?

xxiv. Whether the act and conduct of respondents for not passing

rehabilitation and resettlement award is justifiable?

xxv. Whether issuance of 3-A & 3-) notification by changing

the recorded nature of land leads to quashing all the

acquisition proceedings in question?

xxvi. Whether the Act and conduct of respondents of taking steps

to take possession of property without following the due

course of law can stand the test of relevant statutes and

principles of natural justice?

30. That present writ petition has been preferred as a last resort

(after exhausting all the statutory remedies) to raise the genuine

concerns of petitioners who are suffering a lot due to the unlawful

conduct of respondents. All the contentions raised against the

respondents are supported with the documentary evidence and relevant

statutory provisions. That the objections filed u/s 3 C(1)of the Act of

1956 has been rejected in one line without passing any speaking order or

by application of mind. No opportunity of hearing has been granted to

the petitioners to hear their grievances/objections while finalizing this

compulsory acquisition process. Rather the employees of respondent

NHAI have come to demolish the residential houses and other structures

of the petitioners without providing them their lawful entitlements and

benefits. The petitioners immediately approached the office of

competent authority highlighting the said act and conduct of employees

but no action for the same as been taken so far.

31. That the respondents especially Competent authority has

neither pronounced the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award nor has

taken a single step to make a provision for basic amenities in view of

second and third schedule of the Act of 2013 due to reason well known to

them and now the respondent competent authority has passed one another

award only for structure and superstructures by calculating cost of bricks,

cement, iron, Linton, sand, gravel etc. instead of passing Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Award along with it. This is a traditional practice

(under the provisions of old Land Acquisition Act prevailing prior to

2013) followed by the competent authority in all the cases of acquisition

by the NHAI. The competent authority even after the passing of Act of

2013 is still in a continuous practice of assessing the compensation in

view of such Colonial legislation. Thus it is a best case for immediate

indulgence of this Hon'ble Court so that directions can be passed to the

respondents including the competent authority to pass the

Award for land afresh by including the value of these assets, pass the R

85 R Award, make provision for in -rastructural amenities in the

resettlement area, prepare a Development plan in addition to that so that

interests of the poor petitioners belonging to Scheduled caste and

backward class families, can be saved. if this has not been done, it will

lead to multiplicity of litigation.

32. That it is again submitted ':hat the petitioners are before

this Hon'ble court not for the enInncement of the amount of

compensation rather have approache :1 to highlight the illegalities

committed by the respondent NHAI '7. n d the competent authority

who despite of such clear mandate of ':he Central Govt. Notification

dated 28.08.2015, Letter dated 11.0c;.2015, the Act of 2013, the

guidelines, notifications, letters, corrigendum issued by the govt. in

this behalf and several requests in tr.e form of objections/claims

made by the petitioners, are not wilt' to pass the rehabilitation and

resettlement award and make p: 31.Tisions for basic amenities

thereof.

33. That it is a well settled proposition of law that where land has

been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent

authority is bound to Pronounce Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award,

Entitlements for all the affected families (both landowners and the

families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land acquired) in

addition to those provided in the Is schedule, in view of section 31, 38(1)

and 105(3) and 2nd schedule of Act of 2013 and to make provisions of

Infrastructural Amenities as per section 32, 38(1) and 105(3) and 3rd

schedule of the Act of 2013. The following are the some judgments

passed Hon'ble High Courts, whereby competent authority directed has

been directed determine compensation pass the R 86 R