Fakir Mohammad vs Union Of India And Others

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

Heard on the question of admission.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owner and in possession of the land Khasra Nos.2061/3317, 2786, 2787, 2788, 2789 total Rakba 0.658 hectares situated at Khujner Teh. Khujner Distt. Rajgarh, M.P.

The respondents published notification in the official gazette under 3A of National Highways Act on 09.12.2021 and proposed to acquire petitioner's lands bearing survey no. 2786, 2787 and 2788 for construction of four lane bypass road on National Highway No. 752-C Jirapur-Pachore road in Khujner. That surveys were conducted for proposed land acquisition and thereafter objections regarding land acquisition were called from general public. The respondents published notification dated 11.02.2022 under Section 3D of National Highways Act confirming the acquisition of lands including land of petitioner bearing survey No. 2786, 2787 and 2788 and also paid the compensation to petitioner for such acquisition. However, when construction of four lane bypass road began, the respondents wrongly and malafidely began to construct road on petitioner's land bearing survey no. 2061/3317 and 2789 which were not acquired by the respondents and no compensation was even paid to petitioner with respect to survey no. 2061/3317 and 2789. The petitioner made representation before respondents but no resolution of petitioner's grievance was done. The petitioner also applied for demarcation of his land before Tehsildar but same is not done maliciously by the Tehsildar. Aggrieved by such wrongful and malafide deeds of respondents and non-payment of compensation to petitioner for road construction on survey no. 2061/3317 and 2789 and non-compliance with due procedure established by law by respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation (Annexure-P/6) and application for demarcation (Annexure-P/7) has already been preferred, but no action whatsoever has been taken by the authority. However, it is pointed out at the Bar that there is a Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act formulated to resolve the dispute of such a nature. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Competent Authority For Land Acquisition (CALA).

0 5 . In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Competent Authority For Land Acquisition(CALA) by filing a detailed representation within ten days. If such a representation is filed, the authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months positively and pass a reasoned and speaking order and till then, both the parties shall maintain status quo.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid, Petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.