Land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be restored to the previous owner on account of non-utilisation, the Allahabad High Court ruled..In an order passed recently, the Division Bench of Justices Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Bachchoo Lal in the case of Santosh Devi v. Union of India, ruled that there is no provision for restoration of land that was acquired under National Highways Act..It was contended that a piece of land was acquired from the petitioner by the authorities for laying of an expressway. Subsequently, due to alteration in alignment, the land was not used for the said purpose..On account of this, the petitioner argued that the land should be restored. However, there was no contention made by the petitioner that a similar benefit of restoration of land was given to any other person..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rahul Agarwal, while Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra appeared for the respondents..The Court observed that the Act under which the land was acquired is silent on the contingency of non-utilisation of the land..“The land has been acquired under the National Highway Act 1956. The said Act does not make any provision for restoration of the land in the event it has not been utilized by the acquiring body.”.In the absence of any such provision, the Court held that the respondents are under no obligation to restore the said land..“In the aforesaid circumstances, in the absence of any such legal provision available, the respondents are under no obligation to restore the land for which a mandamus cannot be issued.”.The Court ruled that in the backdrop of these circumstances, there is no case made out by the petitioner and thus, dismissed the writ petition..Advocate Rahul Agrawal appeared for the petitioner while Pranjal Mehrotra appeared for the respondent..Read Order:
Land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 cannot be restored to the previous owner on account of non-utilisation, the Allahabad High Court ruled..In an order passed recently, the Division Bench of Justices Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Bachchoo Lal in the case of Santosh Devi v. Union of India, ruled that there is no provision for restoration of land that was acquired under National Highways Act..It was contended that a piece of land was acquired from the petitioner by the authorities for laying of an expressway. Subsequently, due to alteration in alignment, the land was not used for the said purpose..On account of this, the petitioner argued that the land should be restored. However, there was no contention made by the petitioner that a similar benefit of restoration of land was given to any other person..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rahul Agarwal, while Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra appeared for the respondents..The Court observed that the Act under which the land was acquired is silent on the contingency of non-utilisation of the land..“The land has been acquired under the National Highway Act 1956. The said Act does not make any provision for restoration of the land in the event it has not been utilized by the acquiring body.”.In the absence of any such provision, the Court held that the respondents are under no obligation to restore the said land..“In the aforesaid circumstances, in the absence of any such legal provision available, the respondents are under no obligation to restore the land for which a mandamus cannot be issued.”.The Court ruled that in the backdrop of these circumstances, there is no case made out by the petitioner and thus, dismissed the writ petition..Advocate Rahul Agrawal appeared for the petitioner while Pranjal Mehrotra appeared for the respondent..Read Order:
