Ranveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this petition is made to the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner under Sub-Section 2 of Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (“the Act”). The petitioner also seeks directions that the appeal, preferred under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, may also be directed to be decided expeditiously.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025 is not in accordance with law. He would submit that the petitioner ought to have been given time to make a representation and a date needs to be specified for such hearing, which, it is argued, is not given in the instant case.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that the petitioner had already taken entire compensation; the family members of the petitioner have given an undertaking to remove the encroachment within a period of 3 days. He very fairly concedes that the notice under Section 26(2) of the Act, which is impugned, does not meet the requirement of law; it does not give space for hearing to the petitioner.

Section 26 of the Act is relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant petition. It reads as follows:-

Removal of unauthorised occupation.—(1)

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………...

(2) When, as a result of the periodical inspection of highway land or otherwise, the Highway Administration or the officer authorised by such Administration in this behalf is satisfied that any unauthorised occupation has taken place on highway land, the Highway Administration or the officer so authorised shall serve a notice in a prescribed form on the person causing or responsible for such unauthorised occupation requiring him to remove such unauthorised occupation and to restore such highway land in its original condition as before the unauthorised occupation within the period specified in the notice.

(3) The notice under sub-section (2) shall specify therein the highway land in respect of which such notice is issued, the period within which the unauthorised occupation on such land is required to be removed, the place and time of hearing any representation, if any, which the person to whom the notice is addressed may make within the time specified in the notice and that failure to comply with such notice shall render the person specified in the notice liable to penalty, and summary eviction from the highway land in respect of which such notice is issued, under sub-section (6).

……………………………………………………………………...........

……………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………….”

A bare reading of the above sub-Sections makes it abundantly clear that a notice under Section 26(2) of the Act may be given requiring the unauthorized occupant to remove his occupation, but Section 26(3) of the Act makes some provisions in this regard. According to it, a notice under Section 26(2) of the Act should specify the period within which the unauthorized occupation on such land is required to be removed. The place and time of hearing representation, also needs to be specified.

In the impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, the place and time of hearing any representation, which the petitioner may make, has not been given.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that had the petitioner been given an opportunity, he would have made a representation and would have offered himself for hearing on his representation.

Apparently, the impugned notice does not meet the requirements of law, as given under Section 26(3) onwards of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

The petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 19.03.2025, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is quashed. However, the respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.