IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2866-2880 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.34320-34334 of  

2009)

Union of India … Appellant

Versus

Dr. Kushala Shetty and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the 1956 Act’)  

was enacted by Parliament to provide for the declaration of certain  

highways as national highways and for matters connected therewith.  

Sections 3A to 3I of the 1956 Act contains a comprehensive scheme  

for  the  acquisition  of  land  for  the  building,  maintenance,  

management or operation of a national highway or part thereof and  

determination of amount payable as compensation and other related  

issues.

3. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 3A(1) of  

the  1956  Act,  the  Central  Government  issued  notification  dated  

10.8.2005  for  the  acquisition  of  land  in  18  villages  of  the  

Mangalore Taluk of the State of Karnataka for widening of National  

Highway No.17 from Km.358/000 to Km.375/300, National Highway No.48  

from  Km.328/000  to  Km.345/000  and  National  Highway  No.13  from  

Km.743/900 to Km.745/000.  The notification contained names of the

concerned  villages,  the  survey  number  including  its  particular  

parcel  number,  nature,  type  and  area  of  land  proposed  to  be  

acquired.    In the notification it was clearly mentioned that land  

plans  and  other  details  of  the  land  are  available  and  can  be  

inspected at the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,  

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Baikampady, Mangalore  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Competent Authority’).  It was  

also mentioned that any person interested in the lands may file  

objection before the Competent Authority within 21 days from the  

date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette.  

The  notification  was  published  in  the  official  Gazette  dated  

10.8.2005.  Simultaneously, the substance of the notification was  

published  in  two  newspapers,  namely,  “Deccan  Herald”  and  

“Udayavani”.   

4. In response to the afore-mentioned notification, a number of  

land owners filed objections dated 26.9.2005.  Majority of them  

claimed  higher  compensation  by  asserting  that  after  the  

acquisition, his/her remaining land will become useless and he/she  

will not carry out any improvement.  However, none made a grievance  

that there was any deficiency or defect in the description of land  

given in the notification and, on that account, he was prevented  

from effectively exercising his right to file objections.

5. The Competent Authority issued notice dated 28.9.2005 to the  

land owners under Section 3C(2) so as to enable them to appear for  

personal hearing.  Thereupon, some of the land owners filed further

objections and pleaded that their land/property may not be acquired  

and parambok land (government land) lying just opposite the land  

proposed  to  be  acquired  may  be  used  for  widening  the  National  

Highways.  Some others claimed that they had constructed shops etc.  

and the same can be saved if alignment of the highway was slightly  

changed.   

6.   After hearing the objectors, the Competent Authority passed  

order dated 11.10.2005 whereby it rejected the objections of the  

land owners.  That order reads as under:  

“The Persons noted in Serial No.1 to 73 have submitted  their written objection against the publication of the  notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 3A of the  National  Highways  Act,  1956.   The  notification  was  published  in  Udayavani  and  Deccan  Herald  daily  news  paper  on  07.09.2005  mentioning  the  lands  which  are  required for the extension of existing N.H’s into four  lanes in villages of Mangalore and Bantwal Taluks.

Proper notice have been issued to the objectors of  Padavu village to appear either in person or through the  advocates on 01.10.2005 at 11 a.m. before the Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  Competent  Authority  National  Highways,  Baikampady,  Mangalore.   On  the  appointed date they have been heard individually.

The persons in Serial No.1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14,  15, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,  41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60,  65, 66, 68 and 70 have stated that their commercial  buildings and shop are situated in the proposed land for  acquisition.  The persons in Serial No.3, 4, 5, 6, 16,  21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 71,  72, 73 have stated that their residential buildings are  situated in the acquired land and also they loose their  livelihood.  Therefore, these lands should be exempted  from the proposed land acquisition.

I heard their objections.  It is true that some of  them will have serious hardship of their livelihood.  However,  they  will  be  compensated.   But  in  Padavu  Village in most of the places where the lands proposed  for acquisition for widening the existing N.H. into Four

lanes,  the  existing  N.H.  land  is  very  narrow  and  widening this road is highly essential.

The  lands  which  are  proposed  for  widening  the  existing N.H. into four lanes are very much essential  and  of  National  important.   Here  without  the  land  acquisition the four lanes cannot be laid.  Since it is  National  important  project  connected  with  the  development,  hence  all  the  objections  are  hereby  overruled and rejected under Section 3C of the National  Highway Act, 1956.

Date: 11.10.2005 Place: Mangalore

Sd/- Special Land Acquisition Officer &

Competent Authority, NHAI Baikampady, Mangalore.”  

7. The Central Government accepted the report submitted by the  

Competent Authority and issued notification dated 8.8.2006 under  

Section 3D(1) of the 1956 Act.   

8. In the meanwhile, Shri Arun Kumar Shetty and 11 others filed  

Writ Petition No.8780 of 2006 with the prayer that the respondents  

therein  may  be  directed  to  consider  their  objections  dated  

4.10.2005 and representations dated 21.11.2005 and 15.5.2006 within  

a fixed period.   Their grievance was that the objections and  

representations made by them against the proposed acquisition of  

their land have not been decided by the Competent Authority.  By  

order dated 10.7.2006, the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka  

High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the  

Competent Authority to pass necessary order in accordance with law  

if such orders have already not been passed on the objections of  

the petitioners.  Paragraphs 4 and 6 of that order read as under:

“4. Their  main  grievance  is  in  spite  of  such  representations given by them and also the communication  between  second  respondent  and  first  respondent  of  Annexure “M” dated 26.11.2005, no decision or order u/s  3(C) of the National Highways Act came to be passed.  The  petitioners are here before this Court as they are not in  a position to proceed as they are not definite what the  authorities would say ultimately in the matter.  Until  the first respondent-authority passes the order on the  objections  of  the  petitioners,  the  future  course  of  action is not possible for them.  Therefore, they have  approached this Court.

6. In the light of the discussions; the respondents are  directed  to  look  into  the  representations  of  the  petitioners  and  the  first  respondent-authority  is  directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law  if  such  orders  are  not  yet  passed  by  him.   In  case  decision is taken on the objections of the petitioners  already, the same be communicated to third respondent or  second respondent who is turn shall communicate the same  to the petitioners, within the three months from the date  of receipt of copy of the order.”

9. Since  the  Competent  Authority  had  already  decided  the  

objections of the writ petitioners, copies of the order were made  

available to them vide endorsement dated 18.8.2006, the relevant  

portion of which is extracted below:

“ENDORSEMENT

Sub.:Regarding formation of Four Lane Highway (Widening)  of National Highway between Surthkal to B.C. Road –  Objections of Villagers of Padavu

Ref.:Order of High Court of Karnataka dated 10.07.2006 in  Writ  Petition  No.8780/2006  (G.M.)  Objectors  of  Padavu Village

The enquiry of Objections of the Objectors was conducted  on  01.10.2005  in  the  forenoon  by  hearing  their  objections.

The  main  objections  of  the  objectors  is  that  the  residential and commercial buildings at Padavu Village  are owned by them are being acquired and thereby they  would be suffered loss and their maintenance would be

jeopardized.  They contended that the vacant land as well  as old buildings are situated in the other side of the  road and as such equal distance has to be measured from  the  center  line  of  the  existing  highway  and  they  requested to exclude their properties from acquisition  proceedings.

The National Highway between Nantur to Kaikamba area of  Padavu Village is narrow.  The subject land now notified  for acquisition is essentially required for the proposed  four  lane  highway  (widening)  and  construction  of  fly  over.  The land subjected for acquisition is required for  national development as well as public purpose and as  such all the objections raised by the objectors is hereby  rejected.  Compensation will be paid as per rules.   

This endorsement is issued to the Applicant as per order  dated 10.07.2006 in W.P. No.8780/2006.

Sd/- Special Land Acquisition Officer and

Competent Authority, National Highway Baikampady, Mangalore”

10. Although order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned Single  

Judge  stood  complied  with,  some  of  the  land  owners  of  Padavu  

Village  made  further  representations  dated  16.10.2006  in  which  

they, for the first time, claimed that notification dated 10.8.2005  

was vague inasmuch as the extent of land sought to be acquired from  

their property had not been indicated.   This appears to have been  

done  on  the  advice  given  by  some  lawyer  in  the  light  of  the  

judgment of this Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute  

Factory (2005) 13 SCC 477.  They also claimed higher compensation  

at the rate of Rs.3 lac per cent.  

11. Soon after making fresh representations, the land owners filed  

Writ  Petitions  Nos.16272/2006,  13413/2006  and  1342/2007  for  

quashing  notification  dated  10.8.2005  and  endorsement  dated

18.8.2006.   They  pleaded  that  the  acquisition  proceedings  were  

ultra vires the provisions of the Act and rules of natural justice  

and were also vitiated due to mala fides and arbitrary exercise of  

power.  In Writ Petition No.13413/2006, it was also averred that  

alignment  of  the  highway  had  been  manipulated  to  save  the  

properties of the persons who were related to politicians and those  

who  could  manipulate  the  things  at  the  level  of  the  National  

Highways Authority of India (NHAI).  The writ petitioners also  

pleaded  that  the  vacant  parambok  land  could  be  utilised  for  

widening the National Highways and there was no justification for  

the acquisition of their land.  In paragraphs 5 and 6 of Writ  

Petition No.13413/2006, Mr. S.Arun Kumar Shetty and 9 others v.  

Union  of  India  and  others,  the  petitioners  made  the  following  

averments:

“5. In  furtherance  of  the  said  publication  the  1st  

petitioner on behalf of himself and the other petitioners  filed joint objections dated 16.09.2005 copy of which is  produced hereto as ANNEXURE-D.  As per the objections  filed,  the  petitioners  pointed  out  that  in  order  to  benefit certain influential persons and to protect their  establishments, the respondents have, instead of widening  the Highways on both the sides equally and providing a  straight road, have proposed acquisition on only one side  of  the  road,  thereby  providing  a  road  with  a  bend  adversely effecting the interest of the petitioners and  other who have their properties located on that side of  the road.  The petitioners also pointed out that the  existing National Highways No.13 is almost in a straight  road, have proposed acquisition on only one side of the  road,  thereby  providing  a  road  with  a  bend  adversely  effecting the interest of the petitioners and others who  have their properties located on that side of the road.  The  petitioners  also  pointed  out  that  the  existing  National Highway No.13 is almost in a straight line and  the boundaries of private lands adjacent to the road were  also in a straight line.  That an unnecessary dent had  been  given  in  the  proposed  Highways,  only  to  save  properties belonging to politically influential person on

the other side of the road.  It was also pointed out that  in order to have  a straight road, it would be necessary  to proportionally acquire land on the both sides of the  road calculated from the existing centre point and not by  acquiring land only on side of the road and giving an  unnecessary  dent  to  the  road.   The  petitioners  also  pointed out that some portion of the other side of the  road belongs to the 1st respondent and that the said side  also  has  lesser  number  of  building  and  would  thereby  facilitate  not  only  less  financial  burden  on  the  exchequer  but  will  also  result  in  having  a  straight  highway rather than a dented road.  The petitioners have  also  urged other  grounds for  dropping the  acquisition  proceedings.  The 10th Petitioner also filed a separate  objection  dated  16.9.2005,  copy  of  which  is  produced  proposed widening had a strange deviation in it.  The  petitioner pointed out that the respondents had not taken  into  the  existing  “BITMAC”  road’s  and  existing  “Road  Corridor’s” Centre line as a deciding factor for the new  Highway Central Median, so that equal distance could have  been maintained between two existing “Building Lines” and  also could have had enough width without much disturbing,  the  existing building  from survey  Nos.126/1 to  Survey  No.127/2.  It was also pointed out that because of this  strange proposal of the respondents, many of the newly  constructed two to five storeyed buildings with necessary  Civil Authorities permissions may have to be partially  demolished, making it worthless for the purpose presently  used.  Similar objections were also submitted by the 10th  

petitioner  (Dated  15.09.2005),  7th Petitioner  (Dated  23.09.2005) & 6th petitioner (Dated 26.09.2005), copies of  which are produced hereto as ANNEXURE-F, G & H.

6. Thereafter  the  2nd respondent  in  accordance  with  Section 3-C(2), issued individual notices dated 28.9.2005  to the Petitioners, calling for written objections to the  proposed  acquisition.   Copy  of  one  such  notice  is  produced hereto as ANNEXURE-j.  In furtherance of the  notices, the petitioners went to the office of the 2nd  

respondent and after informing about written objections  already filed as per ANNEXURE-D & H, inspected the sketch  of the proposed widening of the Highway.  The petitioners  were shocked to note that there was an unnecessary dent  given to the Highway so as to enable acquisition only one  side of the road.  This dent was given by changing the  centerline of the existing Highway.  It was apparent to  the naked eye that the dent was given in the Highway only  to favour certain influential persons on the other side  of the road.  In site No.128/2 a triangular land is left  out of acquisition, which gives a dent to the road only  in order to save a service station belonging to relative  of politically influential person.  Similarly a Bar and

Restaurant which is within 10 mtrs from the centre of the  existing  road  is  not  sought  to  be  touched  under  the  acquisition  proceedings  for  the  above  stated  reason.  Although as per the former plan the road was designed in  such a way that most of the land proposed to be acquired  was on the Southern side of the road where plenty of  Government land.  However subsequently it was decided to  acquire equal portion from both sides of the road.  But  now  in  order  to  safeguard  property  belonging  to  politically influential people, most of the land sought  for acquisition is on the northern side of the road where  the  schedule  lands  are  located.   The  petitioner  thereafter  met  the  2nd respondent  on  30.09.2005  and  pointed out about the unnecessary dent in the Highway and  put forward their objections.  The 2nd respondent however  in violation of Section 3-C of the Act, has failed to  hear  the  objections  of  the  petitioners  and  has  also  failed to give satisfactory explanation for the flaw in  the sketch.  The 2nd respondent also pointed that other  than  the  sketch  and  the  details  of  the  lands  to  be  acquired, they have no further details.  The petitioners  were also given to understand that the 3rd respondent is  the  deciding  authority  on  the  objections  of  the  petitioners.”

12. In the written statement filed on behalf of the NHAI, it was  

specifically averred that land plans and other details of the land  

proposed  to  be  acquired  were  available  in  the  office  of  the  

Competent Authority for inspection.  It was further averred that  

the  objections  filed  by  the  land  owners  were  rejected  by  the  

Competent  Authority  after  giving  them  opportunity  of  personal  

hearing.  This is evinced from paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter  

filed in Writ Petition No.13413/2006, which are extracted below:

“7. With reference to the para 5 of the Writ Petition it  is submitted that, the averments of the petitioners are  baseless.  This respondent is a statutory authority known  as  National  Highways  Authority  of  India  (“NHAI”)  constituted under the Act No.68 of 1988 of Parliament,  namely  National  Highways  Authority  of  India  Act,  1988.  The main object for which this authority is constituted is  the development and maintenance of the National Highways  entrusted  to  it.   It  is  submitted  that,  it  is  a  professionally managed statutory body having high degrees  of  expertise  in  the  field  of  highway  development  and

maintenance.  NHAI prepares and implements its plans after  thorough  study  by  experts  in  the  field  and  strictly  adheres  to  professional  standards  of  high  order.  Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner against  the  plan  in  question  adopted  by  this  respondent  for  widening of National Highways between Surathkal and B.C.  Road in the State of Karnataka and in specific in respect  of Nantoor & Maroli Flyover designed to cater the heavy  traffic plying in this stretch is untenable and baseless  in the eyes of the law.  Hence the writ petition is liable  to be rejected.

It is submitted that, the project in question has been  designed based on the detailed studies done by Detailed  Project  Report  (“DPR”)  consultant,  keeping  in  view  the  various  relevant  factors  including  intensity  of  heavy  vehicular  traffic  and  public  interest  at  large.   The  ministry as well as this respondent have high degree of  expertise  in  the  field  and  they  are  using  the  best  technical  know  how  for  implementation  of  the  projects.  Hence  the  allegations  made  against  the  respondent  are  baseless and unfounded and uncalled for.

As  per  the  approved  alignment,  a  portion  of  the  petitioner’s property along with some other properties is  required for the construction of the flyovers and widening  of  the  road.   Therefore,  the  said  property  of  the  petitioners  along  with  some  other  properties  is  coming  under the approved alignment of the four laning work.  The  acquisition has been proposed to the extent of requirement  of four laning work and construction of flyovers.  The  allegation of the Petitioners denied as false.

8. With reference to the Para 6 of the Writ Petition it  is submitted that the averments of the petitioners are  baseless.   The  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  Competent Authority has informed that after publication of  the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A of  National Highways Act, 1956, notices were issued to the  petitioners and objections were heard on 1st October, 2005  and  overruled  and  rejected  the  Objections  of  the  Petitioner as per sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the  said act because the land proposed for acquisition is for  public purpose i.e. formation of four land (widening) and  undertaken  only  after  technical  survey  and  as  per  the  alignments only.

It  is  further  submitted  that  as  per  the  approved  alignment, a portion of the petitioner’s property along  with  some  other  properties  is  required  for  the  construction of the flyovers and widening of the road.  Therefore, the said property of the petitioners along with

some  other  properties  is  coming  under  the  approved  alignment of the four laning work.  The acquisition has  been proposed to the extent of requirement of four laning  work and construction of flyovers.  The land acquisition  is for public purpose namely for the formation of four  land (widening) of the National Highway and construction  of flyovers and hence the Writ petition is liable to be  dismissed.  The required procedure as per the National  Highways Act 1956 (48 of 1956) has been followed by this  Respondent.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by  

common order dated 23.1.2009.  He held that objections filed by the  

writ petitioners were rejected by the Competent Authority after  

giving them opportunity of hearing and the mere fact that they  

would suffer some hardship due to the acquisition of their land  

cannot be a ground for nullifying notifications dated 10.8.2005 and  

8.8.2006.  On the issue of change of alignment, the learned Single  

Judge  referred  to  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Girias  Investment  

Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2008) 7 SCC 53 and held that  

the Court cannot sit over the judgment of the authorities entrusted  

with the task of planning and executing the project relating to  

widening of the National Highways.   

14. The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed against the order  

of learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that notification  

under Section 3D of the 1956 Act could not have been issued before  

communication  of  the  decision  taken  on  the  

objections/representations made by the land owners.  In the opinion  

of the Division Bench, the rejection of objections should have  

preceded consideration of the report submitted by the Competent

Authority and issue of notification under Section 3D of the 1956  

Act and violation of this requirement has the effect of vitiating  

the acquisition.  However, the Division Bench declined to quash the  

acquisition in its entirety by observing that such of the objectors  

who have already received compensation are not entitled to any  

relief.

15. Shri  Vivek  Tankha,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

appearing for NHAI, referred to the scheme of Sections 3A to 3I of  

the 1956 Act and order dated 11.10.2005 passed by the Competent  

Authority  and  argued  that  the  Division  Bench  committed  serious  

error by partially quashing the acquisition proceedings only on the  

ground that the order passed on the objections filed by some of the  

land  owners  had  not  been  communicated  to  them  before  issue  of  

notification under Section 3D.  Shri Tankha emphasized that the  

objections  filed  by  the  land  owners  were  duly  considered  and  

rejected by the Competent Authority and the mere fact that the  

order of rejection was communicated to some of them after the issue  

of notification dated 8.8.2006 did not justify a conclusion that  

the acquisition proceedings were ultra vires the provisions of the  

1956  Act.   He  submitted that  the High  Court should  not have  

partially  quashed notifications  dated 10.8.2005  and 8.8.2006  by  

ignoring the fact that majority of the land owners have already  

received compensation and the acquired land had been utilised for  

the purpose specified in notification dated 10.8.2005.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Division

Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the  

acquisition  proceedings  because  the  Competent  Authority  had  

submitted  report  without  deciding  the  objections  filed  by  the  

respondents.  Learned counsel further argued that the acquisition  

of the respondents’ land vitiated due to mala fides because the  

original  alignment  of  the  proposed  widening  of  the  National  

Highways  was  changed  to  benefit  those  who  have  political  

connections and those who could otherwise pull strings in the power  

corridors.  In support of his arguments, learned counsel invited  

our attention to site plans, annexures R-6 and R-7 filed with the  

counter affidavit before this Court.  Learned counsel submitted  

that compliance of provision contained in Section 3C (2) of the  

1956 Act is not an empty formality and the Competent Authority is  

required to objectively consider the objections filed by the land  

owners and decide the same by passing a speaking order.  Learned  

counsel then assailed the rejection of the objections filed by the  

land owners on the ground that the Competent Authority had not  

recorded cogent reasons for refusing to entertain their plea that  

the proposed extension of the highways can be effectively done by  

using the parambok land.

17. We have considered the respective submissions.  Sections 3A,  

3C and 3D, which have bearing on this case, read as under:

“3A. Power to acquire land, etc.-

(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a  public purpose any land is required for the building,  maintenance,  management  or  operation  of  a  national  highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the  Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such

land.

(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a  brief description of the land.

(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of  the notification to be published in two local newspapers,  one of which will be in a vernacular language.

3C. Hearing of objection,-

(1) Any person interested in the land may, within twenty- one days from the date of publication of the notification  under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of  the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that  sub-section.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made  to the competent authority in writing and shall set out  the  grounds thereof  and the  competent authority  shall  give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either  in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after  hearing all such objections and after making such further  enquiry,  if  any,  as  the  competent  authority  thinks  necessary,  by  order,  either  allow  or  disallow  the  objections.  

Explanation.  -  For  the  purposes  of  this  sub-section,  legal practitioner has the same meaning as in clause (i)  of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act,  1961 (25 of 1961).

(3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub- section (2) shall be final.

3D. Declaration of acquisition.-

(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section  3C has been made to the competent authority within the  period specified therein or where the competent authority  has  disallowed the  objection under  sub-section (2)  of  that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as  may  be,  submit  a  report  accordingly  to  the  Central  Government and on receipt of such report, the Central  Government shall declare, by notification in the Official  Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose  or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A.

(2)  On  the  publication  of  the  declaration  under  sub- section  (1),  the  land  shall  vest  absolutely  in  the  Central Government free from all encumbrances.

(3) Where in respect of any land a notification has been  published  under  subsection  (1)  of  section  3A  for  its  acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has  been published within a period of one year from the date  of  publication  of  that  notification,  the  said  notification shall cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the said period of one  year, the period or periods during which any action or  proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification  issued under sub-section (1) of section 3A is stayed by  an order of a court shall be excluded.

(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under  sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any  court or by any other authority.”

18. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the above reproduced  

provisions  makes  it  clear  that  once  the  Central  Government  is  

satisfied that any land is required for the building, maintenance,  

management or operation of a national highway or part thereof,  

then,  it  shall  declare  its  intention  to  acquire  such  land  by  

issuing  a  notification  in  the  official  Gazette  giving  brief  

description of the land.  The substance of the notification is also  

required to be published in two local newspapers of which one has  

to be in a vernacular language.  Any person interested in the land  

can file objection within 21 days from the date of publication of  

the  notification  in  the  official  Gazette.   Such  objection  is  

required  to  be  made  to  the  Competent  Authority  in  writing.  

Thereafter,  the  Competent  Authority  is  required  to  give  the  

objector an opportunity of hearing either in person or through a  

legal practitioner.  This exercise is to be followed by an order of  

the  Competent  Authority  either  allowing  or  rejecting  the  

objections.  Where no objection is made to the Competent Authority

in terms of Section 3C(1) or where the objections made by the  

interested persons have been disallowed, the Competent Authority is  

required to submit a report to the Central Government, which shall  

then issue a notification in the official Gazette that the land  

should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section  

3A(1).  On publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), the land  

vests  absolutely  in  the  Central  Government  free  from  all  

encumbrances.  Sub-section (3) of Section 3D provides that where no  

declaration under sub-section (1) is published within a period of  

one year from the date of publication of notification under Section  

3A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any effect.  By  

virtue of proviso to Section 3D(3), the period during which any  

action  or  proceeding  taken  in  pursuance  of  notification  issued  

under Section 3A(1) remains stayed by a Court shall be excluded  

while computing the period of one year specified in Section 3D(3).

19. In  this  case,  notification  dated  10.8.2005,  which  was  

published in the official Gazette of the same date and of which  

substance was published in two local newspapers, contained full  

description of the land proposed to be acquired for widening three  

National Highways.  The names of the villages in which the land  

proposed to be acquired was situated, the survey numbers including  

sub-survey numbers, the nature, type and area of the land were also  

given in the schedule appended to the notification.  Not only this,  

it was clearly mentioned that land plans and other details of the  

land are available in the office of the Competent Authority.  This  

is  the  reason  why  none  of  the  land  owners  (including  the

respondents) made any grievance that the notification issued under  

Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due to lack of  

particulars/details,  they  were  prevented  from  effectively  

exercising their right to file objections in terms of  Section  

3C(1).   Of  course, a  grievance of  this score  was made  in the  

objections dated 16.10.2006 filed by some of the land owners of  

Padavu Village, but that was clearly an afterthought and, in any  

case,  the  same  did  not  require  consideration  because  of  non-

adherence to the time schedule specified in Section 3C(1) of the  

1956 Act.

20. The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High  

Court for upsetting the well considered order passed by the learned  

Single Judge negating the respondents’ challenge to the acquisition  

was that declaration under Section 3D(1) was published even before  

communication of the decision taken by the Competent Authority in  

terms of Section 3C(2).   The process of reasoning adopted by the  

Division Bench for recording its conclusion appears to have been  

influenced by an assumption that the objections filed by the land  

owners had not been decided till the issue of declaration under  

Section  3D(1).   However,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  

Competent  Authority  had,  after  giving  opportunity  of  personal  

hearing  to  the  objectors,  passed  order  dated  11.10.2005  and  

rejected the objections.  Though, that order was not crafted like a  

judicial  order  which  is  passed  by  a  legally  trained  mind,  the  

rejection of the representations made by the respondents cannot be  

faulted only on that ground.  The Competent Authority did advert to

the  substance  of  objections,  the  details  of  which  have  been  

incorporated  in  Annexure  P-3  filed  before  this  Court.   The  

concerned officer rejected the same by observing that the land  

proposed for acquisition is necessary for widening the existing  

National Highways into four lanes.  If the consideration made by  

the Competent Authority is judged in the backdrop of the fact that  

a  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  was  incorporated  with  the  name  New  

Mangalore  Port  Road  Company  Limited  for  implementation  of  the  

project known as New Mangalore Port Road Connectivity Project from  

Surathkal to Nantoor and B.C.Road to Padil along with bypass from  

Nantoor  to  Padil,  it  is  not  possible  to  castigate  the  proved  

reasons  recorded  by  the  Competent  Authority  for  rejecting  the  

objections.

21. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed  

widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested  

interests  sounds  attractive  but  lacks  substance  and  merits  

rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents  

have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured  

nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of  

the project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala  

fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither  

the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to  

fish  out  some  material  and  draw  a  dubious  conclusion  that  the  

decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides.

22. A  somewhat  similar  question  was  considered  in  Girias

Investment Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (supra).  In that  

case, the acquisition of the land under the Karnataka Industrial  

Areas  Development  Act,  1966  was  challenged  on  various  grounds  

including the one that the acquisition was vitiated due to mala  

fides.  While rejecting the plea of mala fides, the Court referred  

to S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491, State of  

Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471 and Collector (D.M.) v.  

Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985) 3 SCC 1 and observed:

“14. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted  above that only vague allegations of mala fides have been  levelled and that too without any basis. There can be two  ways by which a case of mala fides can be made out; one  that the action which is impugned has been taken with the  specific object of damaging the interest of the party  and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party  which results in damage to the party alleging mala fides.  It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever  in the pleadings that the case falls within the first  category but an inference of mala fides has been sought  to be drawn in the course of a vague pleading that the  change had been made to help certain important persons  who  would  have  lost  their  land  under  the  original  acquisition. These allegations have been replied to in  the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the land which  had been denotified belonged to those who had absolutely  no position or power. In this view of the matter, the  judgments cited by Mr Dave have absolutely no bearing on  the facts of the case.”

23. We may also refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in E.P.  

Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1974) 4 SCC 3.  In that  

case, the petitioner, who was transferred from the post of Chief  

Secretary and posted as Officer on Special Duty, challenged the  

action of government on various grounds including the one that the  

decision of the government was vitiated due to mala fides of the  

Chief Minister.  This Court rejected the plea of mala fides by

making the following observations:

“90. ….. The petitioner set out in the petition various  incidents  in  the  course  of  administration  where  he  crossed the path of the second respondent and incurred  his  wrath by  inconvenient and  uncompromising acts  and  notings  and  contended  that  the  second  respondent,  therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the  petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account  of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was  transferred  from  the  post  of  Chief  Secretary.  The  incidents  referred  to  by  the  petitioner,  if  true,  constituted  gross  acts  of  maladministration  and  the  charge levelled against the second respondent was that  because  the  petitioner  in  the  course  of  his  duties  obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these  acts of maladministration, that the second respondent was  annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him  out of the way and at the same time deflating him that  the second respondent transferred him from the post of  Chief  Secretary.  The  transfer  of  the  petitioner  was,  therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly  invalid.

91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in  mind two important considerations. In the first place, we  must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to  the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate  into  acts  of  maladministration  by  the  political  Government headed by the second respondent. It is not  within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into  acts  of  commission  and  omission  charged  against  the  second respondent in the administration of the affairs of  Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before  us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry. It  is one thing to say that the second respondent was guilty  of misrule and another to say that he had malus animus  against the petitioner which was the operative cause of  the displacement of the petitioner from the post of Chief  Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited  issue,  not  with  the  former  popular  issue.  We  cannot  permit the petitioner to side track the issue and escape  the burden of establishing hostility and malus animus on  the  part  of  the  second  respondent  by  diverting  our  attention  to  incidents  of  suspicious  exercise  of  executive power. That would be nothing short of drawing a  red herring across the trail. The only question before us  is whether the action taken by the respondents includes  any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus  animus against the petitioner were the operational cause  of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief  Secretary.

92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden  of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person  who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often  more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of  such  allegations  demands  proof  of  a  high  order  of  credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once  the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of  oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in  itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and  if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the  confidence of the people in the political custodians of  power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the  Court  should  be  all  the  greater  to  insist  on  a  high  degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top  administrators are often required to do acts which affect  others adversely but which are necessary in the execution  of  their  duties.  These  acts  may  lend  themselves  to  misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of  their  author  when  the  full  facts  and  surrounding  circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore,  be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts  placed  before  it  by  a  party,  particularly  when  the  imputations  are  grave  and  they  are  made  against  the  holder of an office which has a high responsibility in  the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in  evaluating charge of unworthy conduct against ministers  and other high authorities, not because of any special  status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they  are highly placed in social life or administrative set up —these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial  approach—but because otherwise, functioning effectively  would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this  standpoint  that  we  must  assess  the  merits  of  the  allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against  the second respondent.”

24. Here,  it  will  be  apposite  to  mention  that  NHAI  is  a  

professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field  

of development and maintenance of National Highways.  The projects  

involving construction of new highways and widening and development  

of  the  existing  highways,  which  are  vital  for  development  of  

infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the  

field of highways.  It comprises of persons having vast knowledge

and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance.  

NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and  

maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in  

different fields.  Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in  

view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular  

traffic and larger public interest.  The Courts are not at all  

equipped  to  decide  upon  the  viability  and  feasibility  of  the  

particular  project  and  whether  the  particular  alignment  would  

subserve the larger public interest.  In such matters, the scope of  

judicial  review  is  very  limited.   The  Court  can  nullify  the  

acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular  

project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of  

law or tainted due to mala fides.  In the case in hand, neither any  

violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the  

charge of malice in fact has been proved.  Therefore, the order  

under challenge cannot be sustained.   

25. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment  

is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge  

dismissing the objections filed by the respondents is restored.

      …………………………..J.  

       (G.S. Singhvi)  

      .…………………………J.  

   (Asok Kumar Ganguly) New Delhi, February 21, 2011.