Bharat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This writ petition is allegedly filed in public interest seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the third respondent to construct the road as per the old survey; and a mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 not to create any hindrance in the peaceful possession over the irrigated land of the villagers situated in Village Panchayat Chamaswada, Block Agustyamuni, Rudraprayag district.

The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of the Chamaswada, Block Agustyamuni, District Rudraprayag. He also claims to be a farmer, and a duly elected Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat-Chamaswada. It is his case that while the road, earlier sanctioned, was to pass through the Village Panchayat Chamaswada, which would have benefitted around 500 families, the respondents have shifted the route, and now the road is to pass through Village Chapad, thereby affecting the interests of these individuals.

The petitioner's case is also that the road now sought to be laid affects several private land-holders; and their constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India is being violated, since the road is sought to be constructed on their land without initiating proceedings under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Questions as to where a road should be laid, whether the alignment of the road should be continued as it was determined earlier, or whether it should be changed, etc. are matters in the executive realm, and this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not undertake the task of determining where a particular road should be laid.

If the petitioner, as a Gram Pradhan, has any grievance in this regard, it is always open to him to represent the cause before the State Government. That does not, however, mean that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would take over functions which are in the executive realm.

We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this writ petition seeking change in the road alignment.

The other contention, urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the road is being laid over private lands without acquisition is, however, a matter which would undoubtedly necessitate examination, but not at the behest of the petitioner, who claims to be espousing the cause of those land-owners. Needless to state that it is always open to the land-owners, who are aggrieved by the action of the Government in laying a road over their lands, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Leaving it open to those land-owners, who may be aggrieved by the exercise undertaken by the respondents of laying a road without acquisition of their lands, to avail their judicial remedies, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.