Allahabad HC dismisses challenge to land acquisition for Delhi-Meerut Expressway

The Allahabad High Court last week dismissed a challenge to land acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the purpose of building the Delhi-Meerut Expressway..A notification was issued by the Centre on August 8, 2011 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, seeking to acquire the land in dispute. The petitioners in this case did not file any objection to this notification. After dismissing objections made by others, a declaration was made under Section 3D for acquisition of the land..The petitioners contended that it was not indicated exactly what portion of land was sought to be acquired. They further claimed that the land plans and other details were not made available to persons after the notification was made. As a consequence, they claimed to have received information about the acquisition only in February 2013..They further argued that the acquisition stands lapsed, as the amount of compensation was incorrectly calculated..NHAI, represented by advocate Pranjal Mehrotra, contended that the petition was filed in May 2017, almost six years after the notification under Section 3A was issued, and therefore, ought to be dismissed..The Bench of Justices Dilip Gupta and Jayant Banerji agreed with this argument, stating in its order,.“…even if it be assumed that the petitioners acquired knowledge of the notification towards the end of February 2013, then too there has been an inordinate delay in filing the petition. According to the petitioners, they earlier filed a writ petition in December 2014 before the Delhi High Court which was disposed of on 24 December 2014 with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide it. Though, the petitioners were informed in September 2015 that the representation was rejected, this petition has been filed after a delay almost one year and nine months…The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.”.After citing a number of Supreme Court and high court judgments to support its ruling, the Bench pointed out that the petitioners did not make their objections on time..“There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioners contacted the ADM (LA) within 21 days to find out the details. In fact, the petitioners have stated that it was only in February 2013 that they came to know about the acquisition and, therefore, on their own admission they did not visit the office within the stipulated time.”.The Bench also held that disputes regarding compensation would not render land acquisition as invalid..“In any view of the matter if the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount of the compensation that has been determined under Section 3G(1) of the Act, they can always take recourse to arbitration proceedings as contemplated under Section 3G(5) of the Act. This, however, cannot be made a ground to set aside the award.”.The Court, therefore dismissed the petition..Read the judgment: