Delayed petitions challenging land acquisition should not be entertained: Allahabad HC

In a judgment passed last month, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the time limit for raising objections to land acquisition done for public purpose, as prescribed under Section 3(C) of the National Highways Act, 1956, must be strictly adhered to..The Bench of Justices Dilip Gupta and Dinesh Kumar Singh-I also reiterated various Supreme Court decisions in holding that the scope of judicial review of land acquisition involving public interest is limited..The Court was hearing a petition challenging land acquisition by the Centre through a notification in August 2013, under Section 3(D) of the Act. Prior to that, in January that year, the Centre had issued a notification under Section 3(A) of the Act, declaring its intention to acquire 6.8 hectares of land for public purpose..The petitioners had raised objections to the same in March 2013, beyond the stipulated time limit of 21 days, as envisioned in Section 3(C)(1) of the Act. They also prayed that instead of 0.2461 hectares of their land, only 0.0174 hectares may be acquired since only this much area of adjacent plots was acquired..Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Ravi Kant argued that the objections raised by his clients in March 2013 were yet to be determined and, therefore, the notification dated 23 August 2013 issued under section 3D (1) of the Act should be set aside, since it had been issued without following the procedure contemplated under Section 3C of the Act..Pranjal Mehrotra, appearing for the National Highways Authority of India, contended that the instant petition was filed after an inordinate delay of four years, and that the petitioners did not file their objections within the time limit stipulated in Section 3(C)(1) of the Act..While arriving at its decision, the Bench cited the Supreme Court judgment in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others, in which it was held that the objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purpose other than those under Section 3A(1). It therefore held,.“In the present case, as noted above, all that was stated by the petitioners was that lesser area of land should be acquired. The objection was not that the land was being acquired for any purpose other than Section 3A (1) of the Act. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any issue about non-consideration of their objections.”.The Bench also highlighted that the Supreme Court has time and again refused to entertain petitions for annulling land acquisitions when they have been filed with considerable delay. It was further held,.“It may be true that area of the land of the petitioners that was acquired was more but then the area that is actually needed depends upon the alignment of the Highway and it is for the experts to work-out what area is actually required.”.For the above mentioned reasons, the Court went on to dismiss the petition..Read the judgment: