IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 26111 day Of October, 2029 T T' ..
BEFORE:
Ti~IE H{)N'BLE MR JUSTICE D V'
WrI'tPefit1'On NO. 3758 _
BETWEEN ' ' A T' A
VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS .
S/O GUDDE TI~iIMMAIAH=._ _ 2
R/AT NO.10, 11TH CROSS ._ ' .
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM '
WESTOF CHORI3-ROAD 3' ' _ -
BANGALORE--s56G'G;;OS;S. * _ PETITIONER
_ .4" ' Adm]
1. UNION OF'-"iN«II_)'IA . .
BY SECRE::fA§§3f.T'O. GOVERNMENT
ROAD TRANSPORT_ ISEHIGHWAYS
DEPARTMENT ' ._ '
, --SECRE'}'ARh?IT'OF'-SHIPPING ROAD
. "'INSPOR'FfNG Sp HIGHWAYS
NEW DELHI. .....
2'; A T 'I I _THE CLOIIQIPETENT AUTHORITY 8:
-_ ISPECx1AI;'LA.ND ACQUISITION OFFICER
. HEIVLKFVATHI PROJECT
NAIIONAL HIGHWAY NO.-48
§\EELAI\/LANGAIA, HASSAN DIVISION
KLINIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS
[By Smt Syeda Shehnaz, ACGSC for R1;
Smt Shilpa Shah, Adv. for
M / S. Singhania :3: Partners, Advs. for R2]
3
complaining that considerable extent of his land and
building, in all measuring about 1416 sq.mtrs spreadover
two survey numbers viz., Sy No 37/ 2D and__;3’7′ V5}’1_av.e
been notified for acquisition by the eentr9.}’–g’,o§ierm:r1ent 9
the benefit of national highways autlv1orit.ies”‘-ti’ndeVr=;;the 0
provisions of National I”{ig1*fi_2vays
Act], but the proceedings a haphazard.
arbitrary, whimsical manner to the
petitioner, to vijleltltioner and has
therefore
i), …. _i;Ss_i1e’1-11:; turil of be-rtiorélri or writ or order
‘0’r0.tg.directior1’_’t0 quash the notfication
— No.SCj’ 0014835-10E} dated 26.10.2007 issued
2 “by ‘me -first”-.resp”ondent published in the
VW,Gdzette Extrgordinary dated 26.10.2007
at-. ‘Anrtexure — H in so far as the
Vv petition.__e__r’.s land in Sy.No.37/2D and
V37/2E concerned: and
any other appropriate writ or order
‘ for’ direction deemed fit in the
‘ -. «izircurnstances including payment of cost.
Cotktencitng that while it is always open to the public
.0 “‘a1.it1*1orities to take up public causes including widening
.5
=: 6 _ -‘ ‘ –
§2′(*%;*
4
and improving of national highways, Which, the
respondents claim is part of national vV.1ri’iéi’;..\.2vays
development project but at the same time__;it”sh_~o_i:1id_.v” be
done in a manner contempiated by law. non: ‘
arbitrary manner, but action taken :by.f?the,.resporie§i-enté; in ‘
the present case is arbitrary,«._jwhirnsicai,
against the petitioner, to the_f:”detrirnent «-offthe} petitioner
and therefore the petitioi1er’f–_ha.s vvcornepifbefore this court for
relief.
3. Noticesf: €._issued.v t’o””t’}”1’e respondents and
Partners, have entered
appearance for authority, Whereas the first
respondpent:’1:.nion.v” off’-inzdia though is represented by Sri
‘ “-v.,5yedRg1 ighehnaz, Central Govt Standing Counsel,
appeared before the court today for first
res p.ond’e’nt.3’
Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of
second respondent contending that the acquisition of
2
:2
5
part of land and building belonging to the petitioner is for
the purpose of widening of existing highway invto,l,:.a»,.four–
lane highway from KM 28.00 to KM
[Nelamangala to Hassan section]; that~th,e::’.,rn’inistIyp:”of
shipping, road transport and ~w¥»§ri.th i’
this project and had ca1Lise_d ac.qijisVitio’n’
exercising the power under 3 of the
Act by issue of declaring its
intention to acquire the the schedule to
the notified, objections
invited, _ ” acquisition proceedings
processed. the petition averrnents are
incorrect,’penrerseflgvithyaut substance; that the project of
widening the ro’ad.,,i$.v’i3€ing Jarried on in consonance with
..par_ai:r1’etérs_ set by the Indian Road Congress and the
report has been prepared by a team, of
expertsliiand consultants, keeping in Vi€W the geometric
A X1′ ” §{iz;,’,”Vertical and horizontal curves, topography of area and
l design, speed etc; that all technical details have been kept
6
in mind; that while it is a fact that the petitioner had filed
his objections to the proposal, the petitioner HhaT.s*r.been
heard, but his objections have been rejected
land acquisition officer and therea.fte.r’:”~.,
proceedings have been finalizedlandrothedtprqiect’inanagder ‘
of the highways authority order’.
the objections; that ‘thereai€tei;.,:_ proceedings
have been finalized; of the petitioner
that the road tgakes place Where
the petitioneirfgfg hiui.1«di1ig’ismlocated, is incorrect;
that curves are ail keeping
in View 2 the Widening the road and
straightening a copy of the alignment plan
of ‘=atv.___t…}l1ut plot, produced at Annexure-Ri to
st_ateine’13.t of objections, is testimony of the
responderitjsjelonduct and action to develop the proposed
fourl–lan’e the highway, keeping in mind the geometry of
A tlaelroad for the purpose of widening and also to ensure
‘ the improvement of horizontal curves and minimizing the
§(‘.r
7
curves wherever it is inevitable etc., in terms of para-5 of
the statement of objections, reading as under:
5. Paragraph 9 to 11: The allegations made
by the petitioner is perverse and without any
substance. It is submitted that the alignrrien.t’rofr._V
the proposed 4-lane carriageway has
decided as per the parameters laid dawri-« :_.
Indian Road Congress and on the “Dletailedlt
Project Report prepared by team.-“‘of:jExperty
Consultants keeping in v:’£elw”‘geo’me_trics._ viz–,-T: A
vertical & horizontal ‘».__curves,
topography of area and design speedy ‘etc:.”–~ ‘
Further in order to atioid minimize wasta’g,e of
existing carriageway, the .proposecl~. o {–‘i;–lane is
designed in such a way___that the existing 2}?-lane
Carma’ geway is.’n3tair1ed to j’th’e,_extent”fesibile
and additional» .24-lane’, “carriageway is
constructed. In accordance with same, the
existing carriageway beeii retained and the
new cai’rid§Z€’way hasrlbeen’ proposed on the left
hand. «–<sidélj_,o__f * ex_isting._" carriageway with a
rnedian .:;_qt 4;;-5 'submitted that the
acqr4is'ition'1-Igf _th_e properties as notified in 3-D
notification inevitablefor the propsed Right of
Way of 6€firi,'iIt "further submitted that the
existing roadjjis "serpentine with five horizontal
curves within at distance of one kilometer. Under
.the proposed "4–laning of the highway the
georrietry"'of,,t_liieVroad is also being improved by
V appropriately positioning the new carriageway
"to minimize or improve the horizontal
_ ylACii:TZ?v¢S_.AV.l'-T318 copy of the alignment plan of the
national highway at this stretch is produced
h__er'e.w'ith and marked as Annexure–R1
8
It is, therefore. prayed for dismissal of the petition, as the
petition is without merit etc.
5. To the statement of objections, a suppief:’3.e’ntary
memo for placing on record copies of the”:-fo£1oWi’1ig””–‘si:;.
documents is appended:
1.
_{5′:
‘Consolidat’ed report by
Objections filed by the i”i–i
the Asst. Com1jnissione’r_vCtnd Competent;
Authority. ‘ ‘ ‘ ”
Notice underj Section.’ ‘Ctfor heczfixig the
objections. — A ”
Minutes off they 1.he’¢iri:%ig® by Asst.
Commissioner c_tr1d..Cotnpeterc1t Authority.
-. ‘ response to the
* petitio11er’s’ –o£igj’eetion.
by the Asst. Commissioner
V and”Co_tnp.etent Authority.
the Asst.
” Commissioner and Competent Authority
–“cj–;after publication of notification under
Section 3A and hearing of objections
under Section 3C of NH Act.
10
as one proceeds from Nagamangala to Hassan and has
submitted that the proposed action instead of either
straightening a curve or minimizing a curve, has only
resulted in deepening the curve, by deliberately.’e:$sjteriz:ling
the curve into the property of the petitione–r;l4Atli:éi’t~:l
being done, only due to political 1f_ival.I_’y ‘ .
the petitioner, a person having
party”, which is opposed tolthvegoartjf in “at the
relevant point of time, whichll”_con’trols the. respondent-
authority; that the biased action is Very
obvious on the -face of the _lI:fI€C()4Il”(3l’.”‘£_3.VS.€lJ€lJ.’1 when there was
a possibili–ty road at the particular place.
the curvé*.i_4sl .deepei1._e’d.:_ll.to the utmost detriment of the
petitioner; V thnalt’-usucli action will result in not only
‘acq’Liiring~icorisiderably more than the required extent of
petitioner’sf_lah”d, but also will result in demolition of a
l.V_?choulltri;/kdlyana mantap constructed by the petitioner for
A ..ffthVel’benefit and welfare of the people of the surrounding
villages; that it will also result in considerable financial
J
9
1 1
loss to the petitioner etc., but instead of avoiding the
unnecessary acquisition of land only to enhance the
curve. it would have been proper and even easier__’_1’o?r,_the
authority to straighten the road at that
be, should acquire the land on the l
but acquisition of the land,’on_ the “left A road
that spot where the petitionerl’s_Vlpl’anVd anéfillkdlyana mantap
is situated is being deliljeraltely» do-neA”to_har1n the interest
of the petitioner, h
8. In this c_oign’sei”for the petitioner has
drawn:’l”‘niy”eA th._e””‘following portion of the
objections ..plla«ce’dV,.—the special land acquisition
officer;
‘–It ‘learn: from the civil engineering
it that while widening any road, the
piinciple adopted is to measure the
A7..l’exVtent. Qflwtdentng from the middle of the road
so,~tht:ttAthe aggrieved persons do not accuse of
” any favoritism or arbitrariness in the process of
A aequisition. However, in the present acquisition,
A an extent of 200 feet is acquired on the
southern side of the road while an extent of 50
feet is proposed to be acquired on the northern
12
side of the road. You are informed that my
building lies within the southern margin while
there are no buildings within the northern
margin. Thus there is no justification fo:f”Vttte””.,
acquisition to be made dtsproportionatety._and.i _
this has resulted in unwanted curves, bends’ : ‘
the proposed road. V’
9. Learned counsel for the peti«tio}fier
the manner in which the-._flp’Qwer.” ayai.luai::{le”.._dunder the
provisions of the Act fbr drawing
plans by the the faulty and
mala fde manneijof respondents, not
only in statutory powers under
the and preparation
of plan} plan drawings at the
place. where t_:he.peti’vtiofier’s land is located and lying in
the stretchlv of the national highway from KM
clearly indicates that the proposed plan
ske=tchj.:is faulty; that even a layperson can observe
“that road which could have been otherwise proceeded
st1’ai§ht has unnecessarily taken a left leap and curve at
5
<.":*~'.
.’\ ‘
i’
13
that point; that the mala fide action is writ large on the
face of the record and therefore the action taken by the
authority for exercising power for acquisition of land in
between this stretch is vitiated by arbitrary of
exercise of power and for the purpose not e.ri.visaged:l
the object and intention of the notifi_cati_on’fo:rjVacqriisit.ion» pp
and deserves to be quashed.
10. It is also submitted llb3r’*pointi1igl”‘ record,
particularly docurx1ent:’_”i\1o of hearing by the
competent authority, to the learned
counsel for land acquisition
officer himself lhald.
27-12007 l°Cdse.calledVl”‘
. Petitioner’ present. Z.P. member
‘Advocate RM. presents [sic].
” Objections filed. Needs second
‘ thought for alignment of road. His
~ Exhoultry constructed spending 1.5
crores. Land of 7 lakhs. If road
alignment is altered it would
some [sic] choultry. There is bend
which can be straightened.
fx
1 1.
learned counsel for the petitione.r’ri’s..tha.-“llland ‘ ;
acquisition officer himself had that
the road involves a bend be’
14
Filed objections.
Sd/–
S.L.A.O.
as. Nayaic.
Sd/ —
Veerappa.
Based on this noting, submission of
straightened etc. It also thatlevciij while the
acquiring authority wasi40rww.Vp’Litting corrective
measures, it very filed on behalf of
the national by its project director,
which had res;u1te:Ei”in”‘ih’e rejecfioia order as under:
Heard ~ themgjectiori: The project director NHAI
in this letter dated 14-3-2007 has replied that
– acquisitianofland is based on alignment of
p_roposed 4–laning of NH –48 and the land
essential for the project and hence
Q” =._’C(:lIlf_l’O€ bzeldropped from acquisition. Hence the
A requ.es;ted
” considered [sic].
of the applicant cannot be
i ” ‘ oI:y’ection is disallowed.
Sd/ –
15
Special Land Acquisition Officer
and Competent Authority,
NH48, Nel.amangala–Hassan Sectiorp
Kunigal, Tumkur District =
This order is again Vitiated etc., and further
proceedings based on such OI’d€I’.<iS depfectiveiiandi deserves ' ;
to be quashed.
12. Appearing on behalf; s_econd.: ur.:espondent4d
authority, Ms Shilpa: coiiiivseiii has very
vehemently submitted’ is at a Very
advanced sta_g«;-iyipthat “has already been
completed is not reflected in
the statexnentvof that had been filed earlier, the
present ipoysittion” through the memo placed
befotfe the today and as indicated by Sri
»-JjN’aiaitin1nar;”*-project director, who is present before the
been brought before the court by the
authority “for expiaining the technical aspects of the
V»piroje.ct etc; that there is absoiuteiy nothing wrong with the
acquisition proceedings: that every procedure is
16
meticulously followed: that convenience or inconvenience
to a land owner whose land or building may be loaipiéited on
the highway or in the vicinity of the highw-;i:Y+_4’Qp;é’y_l_olri:_:vthe
sidelines of the highway, which is ‘._i’olr’..gV1l
developmental purpose, cannot beygla “coi1sider.ation__in l’
determining the legality or’ of
proceedings; that the entirellpr’oj:ect_ hfnalized on
obtaining able expertgui”d_arice;_panii when once
the validity of the ac:quvis,iti.0n. are not found
wanting, there’ to interfere with
the the project and courts
cannoltggsit. -the decisions of experts and
technical”p:ersori’st up of road plan etc., have
all ,b§elen’.done’ ‘inficon:sultation with the technical experts
_’there–,is~-no scope for interference by courts in a
lhiatterllloihthisl”nature; that the allegation of rnala fide is
notnjiadehlllgood by impleading necessary persons by
A ..j”l.na’rnes, no particular averment or allegation of malafide
ids; levelled against any particular person in the petition
1 7
and in this Vi€W of the matter. the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed; that the petition is more an irnpedinient for
development Work rather than espousing an-y..’13gi’ti’n:1’ate
cause or grievance of the petitioner; without
merit, frivolous and deserves to be d’isrnj.is’-sed,’ 4′ f
13. In support of the su’orr_1issions’,=. 1earr;eat’¢ou’nsé1i ‘fort’
second respondent has placedreiianee’ judgment of
the Supreme Court inithe BHATTA
vs STATE or [A1″R7..1Vs97 so 1236] to
submit that judgment, there is
no scopeViVI”or..}’the’7eo11_rt.:t’o interfere with a matter of this
nature:-r Learned A:co_u’nsie»l.has placed a strong reliance on
the Aobservtatieon ..ci–on’tained in para–10 of the judgment,
. – …..
“!3’efore parting with this case, we think it
* necessary to make a few observations relevant
to.~Zanjdacquisition proceedings. Our country is
now launched upon an ambitious programme
x j 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
18
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
Singapore. it is, however, recognised »allt-C’;
hands that the infrastructure necessary
sustaining such a pace of progress _is_w~o_efully_
lacking in our country..,»AA»The of;
transportation, power and ;;:’on1rnun13C_atio’n_s”are”‘,,, _ A
in dire need of substantialC”impro_vc.ment,”~.,_A”C
expansion and rriodeznisation. Thesei things} ‘
very often call for acquisition of land anldfthatl
too without any delay. _howev_er,’ “C natural
that in most of these the’~pe.rsons
affected challeng,e§–the-‘_ ax;quis_ition proceedings
in Courts. These challenges’ are generally in the
shape of writ pet.it1’_o~ns’ .fil,ed.””in”High Courts.
invariably, stay fiof is asked for and
in some ‘;oi’ders,_lb.y” way of stay or
iry’un”ction-.ar””e’./,_al3Q–«.__made. atever may have
been the»~p?:actices in thepast, a time has come
whe’re,the C'(:~urts’.s’hould”‘keep the larger public
interestl’inm_in.d’whi.le –exercising their power of
granting . s’tay/linjunction. The power under
Article i226″–is”‘discretionary. It will be exercised
portly in fu_rth.eranc’«é of interests of justice and
not merely, on the making out of a legal point.
‘And the matter of land acquisition for public
purposes, the interests of justice and the public
–in”terest,.c(_;:alesce. They are very often one and
-ythe .”_same. Even in a Civil Suit, granting of
iry’u.ncjtion or other similar orders, more
particularly of an interlocutory nature, is
equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh
it the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest
while exercising the power under Article 226 –
indeed any of their discretionary powers. It
19
may even by open to the High Court to direct,
in case it finds fnally that the acquisition was
vitiated on account of non–compiianee with
some legal requirement that the persons
interested shall also be entitled to a porticulrtih
amount of damages to be awarded as a
sum or calculated at a certain percentage» .of-‘jg ,
compensation payable. There are A
of affording appropriate relief and redres.sinq=a ~ K
wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedtng””is_’ V
not the only mode of re<;'f.ress.'To«_wit,..__it.,is"V__
ultimately a matter of balaneingjthe it
interest. Beyond this, itis neither possible nor': V
advisable to say. We "tr_ustwthat~.theee'
Considerations will be by
the Courts while dealir:.–g,"vzuith challenges to
acquisition proceedings. , ~ V
14. Origina} record is,’ a1s:;’i §a1aced7.,’t»efore the court.
indicating’ design of the road in
respect”,ot’._the. .NH48 lying in between KM
49.474; to Wfithtireference to the sketch and plan,
«..,it veheInent’1y’e,sserted by Ms Shilpe. Shah, learned
seejend respondent that the curve of the road
at is very necessary and it sub~serves the
V”‘»purpose:s’ of an overali project and such assertion is also
V-sot1é1l1t to be bolstered by the version of Sr}; Jwalakumar,
§
20
Project Manager, who. it is claimed is an executive
engineer and a technical person, to submit tha.t’–.gmere
straightening of a possible curve of the road ate.’
point ie. stretch of NH48 lying in betweenI}iM’
KM 50 is not the thing, but the’¥enti_re plan’ ‘b
one is required to be exair1ineti._V;i1: a _
manner; that a curve before aflcurve after
this stretch are all :’b_t>Tkf3pt hlind While
deciding the stretch of road
and whether avoid the curve at
that opinion is to provide
for a_ it is being carried out etc.
15. I through the original records,
plangand the “‘e::§tractV:of the sketch/plan of the proposed
road, a copy of which is produced at
writ petition, which in respect of the
V –V stretch NH48 lying in between KM 49.474 to KM 50 of
‘:j.theo—highway and even on a comparison and combined
. gm
21
viewing of these two plans and sketch, it is very obvious
even to the naked eye of a layperson that theagroad is
taking a left curve at the point where
property is located and again coming of the»
highway at KM 50 stone. Nothlingieojuldg ‘4
having a straight stretch of roadtvirilthe between,
KM 49.474 to KM 50, but and
not made good on be hidden under
the so~cal1ed technical… advice, the
curve is even to my
understandin2g”:.,.”figes worthwhile purpose,
but orziithe and diametrically opposed
to the of’ and reducing curves and
assnrnirig that ~ there was a curve earlier in the original
whii-e__widening, when it is possible to straighten
these two kilometer points and should
‘V have ‘oeen.’attempted and it is this obvious thing which
“fiends, credence to the allegation of the petitioner, which
* thelpetitioner had made at the earliest point of time even
22
while filing his objections before the special land
acquisition officer that the road is taking a deliberate left
curve at the place the property of the petitioner is located
only to harm the interest of the petitioner due
rivalry that has €XiSt€Cl between the petitioner
wielding influence with the natioinalphighwayl”aiithoritiesl,”»
due to their political affiliations A it’
16. Whether such avernient’s:’and allegatilonsfiare made
good by naming any pe’rson;’lorlV_othperiivise, leglalflllrnizzla fides
are writ large on the faee of r’ecorlii,._lin the authority
persistirngiiii.th’e.roadil_nayi highway with the curve
only so”.as.to land of the petitioner is
acquired and the_buil_ding of the petitioner is demolished
‘l V’ ‘-for no’ cause; for noptirpose and for no one’s benefit, but
cont}? to dletriinent of the petitioner.
.4 17. .l4″\?..\f1*iile;4l.lthis court does not sit in appeal over the
llufopinion “of any expert nor this court takes over the
administration or the manner of implementation of a
23
project nor is the court concerned with the details of policy
making, nor even as to the manner in which the road is to
be laid as to in what manner, it should run whose
property, whether the road is to take a curve
curve or a bend, which are all, as
Supreme Court, are matters b_e»st.__1eft.”.toW ands.
persons conversant with si,1chf
administrators, who A.”a.l__l ‘ iacjtionsb
nevertheless, all such” actionxf,”‘§ind.._’.funcAti’o.n.-‘tipon the
administrative side: review of
administrative’ action {and_has_°tof..ne’cessarily answer the
test of-._faim.es’s,-«vanvdp”n_one7arbitrar*iness in State action,
failing inevitably hit by Article 14 of
the C{onstitutio1ii._ot India.
l’ 14io~,.vv;orthwhile explanation forthcoming for the
retention curve at the particular place, but on the
3″*”~.__V”face of such a retention being to the detriment and
A of the petitioner and though the petitioner has been
24
making persistent efforts to instill a sense of fairness and
proper action to be taken on the part of the author.ity»,.that
having failed. the petitioner has approached it
19. This court. acting as a guardian of i
having a constitutional rnaridateflto
liberty of citizens, has a duty -to pelrfolrin to.
flexing administrative authoritiesy “then abuse
and misuse of powerVi;s._zsoughtV’_pt:o”‘camouflaged the so-
called technical .expertisel:.grp even otherwise
and to it illaluthorities, public
4statiu:t’orylfunctionaries always act only
in conslonlance: provisions, exercise such
statutory powelrs .a;:1d’*adininistrative powers in a fair, 11on-
«..g1rbiit.raryV.m’anner;lthat they do not misuse or abuse their
ipoweri»–.favo2ir_1..one and to victirnize another person and
ultirriateiy ensure that public authorities always act in
larger public interest, eschewing private and personal
_ lliniterest.
25
20. Proper exercise and utilization of statutory powers is
not the manner of conduct of second respondentéiiiin the
present case. Even the special land acqtiis’iti~on..J:ofiicer
had occasion to record the need that can
straightened and the bend CEi1″1:’.I:’36 “1itV}_iat i’
the curve can be avoided. _ V it 3 ‘V
21. Though Ms Shilpa ‘co_Vtu’nseiVf§for second
respondent, seeks recording by the
special land acquisiitiori version of the
petitioner 44 detract from the
recording acquisition officer, as his
signature of such recording and it is
veiyijpitntich note sheets extract which is placed
»b;ei})_re.,the ‘court by the Very second respondent. in fact, it
“-therc’a;’ftei?.,vV’v the very officer has passed orders
subseqiiently, rejecting such objections for the reason that
«project director of the nationai highway authority has
26
strongiy pleaded for overlooldng the objection, as they
have already finalized the plan etc.
22. In this background. even the submission..”4oft’_learried
counsel for second respondent that the_.proj..ectl_l.’is4 in
advanced stage and therefore ‘4
does not carry conviction; as i._lsl’not
project is going to be corrective
measures. if an taken, if an
illegal action has been is misused or
abused.
23. ft-‘:}ven– nevertheless, it is the duty of
this courtto correct’ to permit only such actions of
administrative ‘authorities which are law conforming alone
to be to sustain and it is also equally necessary
to realize its mistake and not to keep
trudging blindly in the wrong direction, but to head in the
» right direction, as it is always said ‘better late than never’.
27
24». The acquisition of land for the purpose of widening
NH48 particularly the stretch between KM 49.47’«§i.”‘to KM
50 is clearly vitiated by arbitrariness Lfitfie
exercise of power for such acquisition
which it is exercised and the .
so–ca1Ied design and plan,’
flawed .
25. Therefore, such’:’proc_eedii1–§sinunderithej impugned
notification in respect of’ the highway
between KM 4 quashed by issue
of a writ” ‘ofii:,cert:iora’1*i1″”buthdiibverty is reserved to the
respondents V1 corrective measure and to go
ahead, after proper raiotification to sub–serve the overall
V’ .objeet 0f~.Wi’denirig”of’the road and straightening the curves
i.ett;..,uk.eepingwi_n_j..view the observations made in this order
by that the road does not take an
xi””.__V”unnec.eis_sa1y curve; that it does not take an avoidable
The judgment of the Supreme Court, on which
28
reliance is placed by learned counsel for second
respondent, in no way furthers the case of the.p’p’.second
respondent in the present case, as a
observation of the Supreme Court is
given to a public authority it ‘1 ii
whimsical and irrational manner.lll”*.lllo
an arbitrary action of a is in
violation of Article 14 of
26. All courtsyand function
under the autfiori_tyf:lv’estecl in them under the
Constitutioniliandlino laLithority””clan claim immunity from
the operation of thieyprov-i.sions of the Constitution. While
it is desirableyvth at ourlcountry also requires development,
gearl”up”to the levels of global competitors and
-keep’ if not in the forefront at least in the
coznpany forerunner, that cannot be achieved at the
oftranipling of the rights of the citizens, violating
ll statutory provisions, even violating the constitutional
29
mandate and such action will definitely be frowned upon
and voided by courts even in exercise of jurisdiction of
judicial review of administrative action. §’i’}<1ifsj..__ii'swl' _._o1a.e
classic case where such power is Very n.ec_essa'ri:1y._ tovibe,
exercised and it is accordingly exerciisedfj. 1 i '
27. Writ petition ai10wed.by.___iss1i’i:ig” a wriit’ ceritiorarit»
to quash the acquisition proc’e,edi.r1gsdiiidrespect of the
stretch of the highway”ii”betweg;:§7 “i{M’A:t’4.9.474 to KM 50,
reserving libertyaas ir1dic.21ted’–e;i)_o4§}ev_ ivfeivour of second
respondent_._ Noviiorder as to costs.
Sd/~
JUDGE