# Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors v. N.H.A.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 778
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1279 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-gupta-ors-v-n-h-a-i-ors-48319
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - National Highways Act,
1956 - Section 3A - notification - Power to
acquire
land
,etc.
,
Section
3D
-
Declaration of acquisition - whenever
there is conflict between public interest
and private interest, the former must
prevail - Courts are not equipped to
comment upon the viability and feasibility
of a particular project - projects of public
importance should not be halted as the
same would be against the larger public
interest - constitutional courts should
weigh public interest vis-à-vis private
interest, while exercising its discretionary
powers under Article 226.(Para -6, 7,8)

Petitioners few of the land owners - land
acquired for widening of road - project of
National Highways not be put on hold -
grievance raised only by small set of affected
persons - objections filed by petitioners -
against the acquisition of their land - rejected -
ground raised for challenging impugned order -
term 'technical' not defined in the impugned
order - hence petition.(Para - 1,2,6,)

HELD:-Petitioners do not deserve any relief as
widening of National Highway is a project of
national importance and larger public interest.
Challenge to the acquisition has been made by a
small set of persons affected by acquisition.
Project cannot be put on hold as any road is to
be constructed as per alighment which cannot
possibly be changed at one particular spot.
(Para - 9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may plainly follow the earlier adjudication
made by this Court. In that case, reference
made would be futile. If the Labour Court
were to chose to take a different view in
face of the findings recorded by the writ
Court (that have attained finality), such
adjudication or award would remain in the
teeth of the adjudication of this Court.
Therefore,
that
award
would
remain
inherently defective in jurisdiction as may
never be allowed to stand upon adherence
to principle of judicial discipline. In fact,
no industrial dispute exists, as on date.

36. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is allowed. The reference order is
quashed. No order as to costs, as the matter
pertains to a workman.
----------
(2022)04ILR A778
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 1279 of 2022

Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
N.H.A.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ganesh Pandey, Sri Vipin Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Dube, Sri A.K. Roy, Addl. C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - National Highways Act,
1956 - Section 3A - notification - Power to
acquire
land
,etc.
,
Section
3D
-
Declaration of acquisition - whenever
there is conflict between public interest
and private interest, the former must
prevail - Courts are not equipped to
comment upon the viability and feasibility
of a particular project - projects of public
importance should not be halted as the
same would be against the larger public
interest - constitutional courts should
weigh public interest vis-à-vis private
interest, while exercising its discretionary
powers under Article 226.(Para -6, 7,8)

Petitioners few of the land owners - land
acquired for widening of road - project of
National Highways not be put on hold -
grievance raised only by small set of affected
persons - objections filed by petitioners -
against the acquisition of their land - rejected -
ground raised for challenging impugned order -
term 'technical' not defined in the impugned
order - hence petition.(Para - 1,2,6,)

HELD:-Petitioners do not deserve any relief as
widening of National Highway is a project of
national importance and larger public interest.
Challenge to the acquisition has been made by a
small set of persons affected by acquisition.
Project cannot be put on hold as any road is to
be constructed as per alighment which cannot
possibly be changed at one particular spot.
(Para - 9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ramniklal N. Bhutta & anr. Vs St. of Mah. &
ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236

2. Pratibha Nema & ors. Vs St. of M.P. & ors.,
AIR 2003 SC 3140

3. Jaipur Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. Vs Alok
Kotahwala & ors., AIR 2013 CC 754

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
& Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Challenge in the present writ
petition is to the order dated December 6,
2021 passed by the respondent No.2 vide
which the objections filed by the petitioners
against the acquisition of their land were
rejected. The aforesaid order was passed in
view of the direction issued by this Court in
4 All. Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. N.H.A.I. & Ors.
779
Writ-C No.23630 of 2020, titled as Pramod
Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India
and others, decided on January 20, 2021.

2. The ground raised for challenging
the aforesaid order is that the term
'technical' was not defined in the impugned
order. Further, the acquisition of the land
for widening of the portion of the National
Highway
No.24
(Hapur-Moradabad
Section), has been made one side of the
road only whereas it should have been
made both sides equally. In case, such
process is followed, the petitioners will
save part of their land from acquisition and
will be able to earn their livelihood
therefrom. It was further submitted that
instead of widening of road, construction of
elevated road on the spot may be more
economical. Hence, the respondents should
have explored that option as well.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that in view
of the direction issued by this Court, the
objections filed by the petitioners were
considered.
As
alignment
of
road,
construction and widening thereof are
highly technical, especially with reference
to National Highways, number of aspects
are to be taken care of. The process of
acquisition of the land is started only after
examining all the aspects in detail. In the
case in hand, all aspects were examined
and the acquisition of the land was
finalised. The idea being floated by the
petitioners that acquisition of the land
should be made on both sides of the road
equally, is totally misconceived for the
reason that in that situation much more
persons than the present petitioners will be
affected. It is not for the petitioners to
decide whether existing road is to be
widened or the elevated road is to be
constructed. In any case, construction of
elevated road is not as cheaper as is sought
to be suggested by the petitioners. The
widening of portion of National Highway
No.24 is being made to take care of the
increase in traffic on road and creation of
infrastructure. Though land of several
persons has been acquired in the process of
widening of road, however, it is only few
persons, who are making objections,
otherwise majority of them have no
objection.

4. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, we do not find any reason to
interfere in the present writ petition. As is
apparent from the record, the notification
under Section 3A of the National Highways
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") was issued on October 12, 2020. As
informed by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the notification under Section
3D of the Act was also issued on March 12,
2021. The petitioners had earlier filed WritC No.23630 of 2020. The same was
disposed of on January 20, 2021. A perusal
of the order dated January 20, 2021 passed
by this Court shows that prayer made was
for quashing of the notification under
Section 3A of the Act. The only grievance
raised therein was that the objections of the
petitioners to the acquisition had not been
considered. The aforesaid writ petition was
disposed
of,
directing
the
Authority
concerned to consider the objections filed
by the petitioners. However, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, instead of
considering the objections himself, had
referred the matter to the Project Director,
National Highways Authority, Moradabad
vide order dated February 12, 2021.
Aggrieved
against
that
order,
the
petitioners again filed Writ-C No.14166 of
2021, titled as Pramod Kumar Gupta and
others v. National Highways Authority of
India and others. The same was allowed on
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
July 1, 2021 by setting aside the order
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer dated February 12, 2021, with
direction to decide the objections afresh. It
is in pursuance thereof that the impugned
order has been passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer.

5. The acquisition in hand is for the
purpose of widening of the portion of
National
Highway
No.24
(Hapur-
Moradabad Section). A perusal of the
impugned order shows that in terms of the
direction issued by this Court, opinion of
the expert was taken and it was found that
the acquisition of land for widening of
portion of National Highway No.24 is
perfect when considered on its technical
aspects. The argument raised by the
petitioners that instead of widening of
existing road, elevated road may be
constructed, was also considered and
rejected for the reason that the same will
involve huge expenditure.

6. The direction issued by this Court
in Writ-C No.14166 of 2021 filed by the
petitioners was for consideration of their
objections against the acquisition of their
land. However, the Competent Authority
found that before acquisition of the land for
widening of the portion of National
Highway No.24, all technical aspects were
considered and it was found to be more
feasible to acquire the land on one side of
the road only. Even otherwise, acquisition
of land for widening of an existing road on
both sides of the road would disturb large
number of persons as compared to one side.
In any case, widening of road in the present
case is to cater to the ever growing need of
traffic on the road, to create infrastructure
and check accidents. The petitioners are
few of the land owners whose land has
been acquired for widening of road. The
project of the National Highways should
not be put on hold on account of the
grievance sought to be raised only by small
set of affected persons. Through the action
of the respondents for widening of National
Highway No.24, the larger public interest
will be served and the same will override
the personal interest of the petitioners. It is
well settled that whenever there is conflict
between public interest and private interest,
the former must prevail. In the case in
hand, larger public interest certainly weighs
in favour of creation of infrastructure even
if there is some technical defect, though
not.

7. It will be apt to note that the
National Highways Authority of India is a
professionally managed statutory body at
the national level having expertise in the
field of development and maintenance of
National Highways. Before construction of
new highways or widening and developing
the existing highways, detailed project
reports are prepared keeping in view the
relevant factors including intensity of
heavy vehicular traffic and larger public
interest. The Courts are not equipped to
comment upon the viability and feasibility
of a particular project and whether a
particular alignment is good or there can be
better option. In such matters, the scope of
judicial review is very limited.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
time and again opined that projects of
public importance should not be halted as
the same would be against the larger public
interest and the constitutional courts should
weigh public interest vis-à-vis private
interest, while exercising its discretion. The
view could very well be gathered from the
judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra
and
others,
4 All. Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. N.H.A.I. & Ors.
781
reported as AIR 1997 SC 1236, Pratibha
Nema and others Vs. State of M.P. and
others, reported as AIR 2003 SC 3140. The
same
view
has
been
expressed
by
Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Metro
Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Alok
Kotahwala and others, reported as AIR
2013 CC 754. Relevant extracts from the
aforesaid
judgments
are
reproduced
hereunder:

i) Ramniklal N. Bhutta's case:

"10. Before parting with this case,
we think it necessary to make a few
observations relevant to land acquisition
proceedings. Our country is now launched
upon an ambitious programme of all round
economic advancement to make our
economy competitive in the world market.
We are anxious to attract foreign direct
investment to the maximum extent. We
propose
to
compete
with
China
economically. We wish to attain the pace of
progress achieved by some of the Asian
countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g.,
South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is,
however, recognised on all hands that the
infrastructure necessary for sustaining such
a pace of progress is woefully lacking in
our country. The means of transportation,
power and communications are in dire need
of substantial improvement, expansion and
modernisation. These things very often call
for acquisition of land and that too without
any delay. It is, however, natural that in
most of these cases, the persons affected
challenge the acquisition proceedings in
Courts. These challenges are generally in
the shape of writ petitions filed in High
Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is
asked for and in some cases, orders by way
of stay or injunction are also made.
Whatever may have been the practices in
the past, a time has come where the Courts
should keep the larger public interest in
mind while exercising their power of
granting stay/injunction. The power under
Article 226 is discretionary. It will be
exercised only in furtherance of interests of
justice and not merely on the making out of
a legal point. And in the matter of land
acquisition
for
public
purposes,
the
interests of justice and the public interest
coalesce. They are very often one and the
same. Even in a Civil Suit, granting of
injunction or other similar orders, more
particularly of an interlocutory nature, is
equally discretionary. The courts have to
weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the
private interest while exercising the power
under Article 226 - indeed any of their
discretionary powers. It may even be open
to the High Court to direct, in case it finds
finally that the acquisition was vitiated on
account of non-compliance with some legal
requirement that the persons interested
shall also be entitled to a particular amount
of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or
calculated at a certain percentage of
compensation payable. There are many
ways of affording appropriate relief and
redressing
a
wrong;
quashing
the
acquisition proceeding is not the only mode
of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter
of balancing the competing interests.
Beyond this, it is neither possible nor
advisable to say. We hope and trust that
these considerations will be duly borne in
mind by the Courts while dealing with
challenges to acquisition proceedings."
(sic) (emphasis supplied)

ii) Pratibha Nema's case:

"38. When no prejudice has been
demonstrated nor could be reasonably
inferred,
it
would
be
unjust
and
inappropriate
to
strike
down
the
Notification under Section 4(1) on the basis
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a nebulous plea, in exercise of writ
jurisdiction
under
Article
226.
Even
assuming that there is some ambiguity in
particularizing the public purpose and the
possibility of doubt cannot be ruled out, the
constitutional
Courts
in
exercise
of
jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136
should not, as a matter of course, deal a
lethal blow to the entire proceedings based
on the theoretical or hypothetical grievance
of the petitioner. It would be sound
exercise of discretion to intervene when a
real and substantial grievance is made out,
the non-redressal of which would cause
prejudice and injustice to the aggrieved
party. Vagueness of the public purpose,
especially, in a matter like this where it is
possible to take two views, is not
something which affects the jurisdiction
and it would, therefore, be proper to bear in
mind the considerations of prejudice and
injustice."

iii) Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation
Limited's case:

"31. With respect to ecological balance,
there has to be sustainable development and
such projects of immense public importance
cannot he halted. It is not the case that
requisite permissions from the Central
Government and the State Government have
not been obtained, thus, objections were
flimsy. In other petitions also pertaining to
the same Project, this Court has held that
such project of immense public importance
should not be put to halt. Thus, flimsy and
untenable objections were raised, which have
been rightly rejected after due application of
mind.
x x x x

48. On merits, we find the order of
interim stay passed by the single Bench to be
untenable, thus, we have no hesitation in
setting aside the same. Suffice it to observe
that in such cases of public importance of
Metro Rail Project, there should not be any
interim stay, rather an effort should be made
to decide the matter finally at an early date.
Staying the land acquisition proceedings is
not appropriate and would be against the
larger public interest involved in such
projects. Thus, relying upon the decision in
the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), we
hold that in the matter of immense public
importance like the present one, the power to
grant interim stay under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not be exercised in the
normal course."

9. If considered in the light of the
ennunciation of law as referred to above, in
our opinion, the petitioners do not deserve
any relief as widening of National Highway
is a project of national importance and larger
public interest. The challenge to the
acquisition has been made by a small set of
persons affected by acquisition. The project
cannot be put on hold as any road is to be
constructed as per alighment which cannot
possibly be changed at one particular spot.

10. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A782
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 1843 of 2022

Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: