CWP - pAPER - BOOK - Old

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. of 2022
Mithoo Devi and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
INDEX
Sr. Document Dated Page Court

Fee
A Court Fee 09.11.2022 A-B
1. List of Dates and Events 20.10.2022 1-6
2. Civil Writ Petition 20.10.2022 7-88 400.00
3. Affidavit 20.10.2022 89
4. Annexures
P-1 : (Copy of notification 05.02.2019 90-91 3.00

issued under Section 3A(l ) of
Act 1956)

bearing S.O. No. 151(E) issued
under section 3 D (1) of the Act
of 1956)
P-3 : (Photograph) 95 1.00

Lot,-

No 1 ,--
WV'
iv,i.-
N u/
ii)L-
AA V'
P-10 : (Photograph) 102 1.00
Nit--
P-11 : (Copy of electricity bill 103-105 3.00
and property tax) mi-
and property tax) V I'-
P-13 : (Copy of electricity bill 108 1.00
and property tax) NH-

and property tax) NA-
and property tax) Nile-
P-16 : (Copy of electricity bill 114 2.00
and property tax) N)L- -
P-17 : (Copy of survey plan of 115 1.00

Saraswati Enclave) NIL
P-18 : (Copy of notification) 04.10.2013 116-118 3.00

S.O. 2368 (E))
P-20 : (Copy of the objection) 122-130 6.00
tovt-
P-21 : (Copy of objection to 131-136 4.00
3D Notification) 0)1.-
P-22 : (Copy of objection to 3D 137-145 6.00

Notification) Nit-

Notification) WI-

Notification) Nn-
P-25 : (Copy of impugned 30.06.2020 164-170 5.00
Award)
P-26 : (Copy of correction 29.07.2020 171-172 2.00
award)
P-27 : (Copy of correction 31.08.2020 173 1.00
award)
P-28 : (Copy of correction 07.10.2020 174-176 3.00
award)
P-29 : (Copy of notice) 07.12.2020 177-178 2.00
P-30 : (Copy of impugned 11.12.2020 179-186 6.00
Structural Award)
P-31 : (Copy of 187-201 10.00
objection/ petition under Ni
Section 3G(5)
P-32 : (Copy of Letter) 11.09.2015 202-203 2.00

P-33 : (Copy of Rules of 204-207 3.00
Disbursement) ,N/1--
P-34 : (Copy of Resettlement April 2021 208-300 61.00

Policy Framework (RPF)
P-35 : (Copy of Social Impact 301.-382 54.00
Assessment and Abbreviated
Resettlement Action Plan) NU-
P-36 : (Copy of public notice u/s 23.02.2021 383-395 9.00

3-E of Act of 1956)
P-37 : (Copy of application) 11.10.2021 396-397 2.00
P-38 : (Copy of R 86 R Award) Nii ,_ 398-406 6.00
P-39 : (Copy of judgment 407-423 3.00
passed by Hon'ble DB) NI vt,
5 Power of Attorney alongwith 10.10.2022 424-432 3.00
Copy of Aadhar Cards
6 Vernaculars:
P-1 : (Copy of notification 05.02.2019 433-435
issued under Section 3A(1) of
Act 1956)
P-2 : (Copy of notification 10.01.2020 436-438

bearing S.O. No. 151(E) issued
under section 3 D (1) of the Act
of 1956)
P-11 : (Copy of electricity bill 439-441

and property tax) No--

and property tax) tot-
P- 13 : (Copy of electricity bill 445

and property tax) pa -

and property tax) NIL-

and property tax) 1L1) L.-

and property tax) N L-)
P-37 : (Copy of application) 11.10.2021 453-454
Total Court Fee : Rs.635.00
Notes:
1.The main law points involved in the writ petition are contained in para
No.29 at page Nos. 74 to 78 thereof.
2.Relevant Rules/Statute:
i. Constitution of India
0. National Highways Act, 1956.
iii. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Whether Caveat Petition has been
filed in this case: No
4. Any other similar case: No
5. Whether any sitting/former MP/MLA
is involved in the case or not? NO
6. Whether any Vires challenged NO
Place: Chandigarh Date: 20.10.2022
diJA,
z
(AMI N)
(PH-220413) (P/619 •007), ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Narendra Negi <negi.narendra76@gmail.com >
4:d
(no subject)
1 message
Narendra Negi <negi.narendra76@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:04 AM

To: advancecopy@satyapaljain.com, aghrycivilphhc@gmail.com
Cc: saklanivicky90@gmail.com
and ors v s union of India and ors.pdf

CHANDIGARH
CWP No. - II of 2022
Mithoo Devi and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
TOTAL COURT FEE: Rs. 635.00
Place: Chandigarh Date: (A IT IN)

20.10.2022 (PH-220413) (P/619/2007), ADVOCATE
717:71k4-50 CHANDIGARH (U.T.) 091999
PuN9z-fii3 11-0() SIP Ht ca-t ce,op 0-/D
, CA/0P 26 2I :0040,
11/41171-too eDE-v1 A-N5D Nei
113
Ur` - ' \ " ) Or - kii2)4 AND oteS
POT- 30-/
‘tOgioe4
e) Pcse-t-- fop_ -rr-6 fcralopa
I
I
0: ise'000140(1r4veltir "eltsweerili?040
V/stom4.0,!tototlt14,40 4stq
/ 1111:11141,,,
111111
j111111, • • - r- •
n 11au
1
All In 11111,1v,
,-
At4.1c
1\31t1
0,1,0, 4 4. ..9. !.4.4.:4

4
all ci
itEt Trafal7) CHANDIGARH (U.T.) 129036
I N 711 F e-P 0 Na-7-66 61`"B 14"- 1'1 64•1xi r C/ C-1 C 00)(T- Cm
"-De-V1. ea-tJ CA)

reT1 o
UNI" k)Dt 19 A-fol) pe) )eFefeateP&A/
fslooq
Colm,SE-z_ Fog_ (PFTTholvet_

1
List of Dates and Events
Petitioners are law abiding citizens of India and
permanent residents of Gurugram,. State of Haryana
and Respondents are departments/instrumentalities of
the Union of India and the State of Haryana.
14.02.2019
85 10.01.2020 The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Govt.
of India has acquired the residential property owned
and possessed by petitioners situated at Saraswati
Enclave Colony, Kadipur, Gurugram which falls
within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurugram
for purpose of building (widening/four laning etc.),
maintenance, management and operation of NH-352W
(Gurugrarn-Pataudi-Rewari Road) on stretch of land
from Km 0 to K.M. 45 (Mini Secretariat, Gurugram)
in the Village Kadipur, Tehsil Kadipur, District
Gurugram and copy of notification bearing S.O. No.
151(E) dated 10.01.2020 issued under section 3 D (1)
of the Act of 1956.
The land/property of petitioners subject matter of
acquisition is shown to be comprised in khasra no.
32/ /7min(2-10) and their residential houses,
constructed staircase, spread foundation, load
bearing RCC Pillar rooms, super quality toilets with
washroom facilities, proper sewerage and drainage
system and fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees

are situated and existing upon the land subject
matter of acquisition.
2
It is submitted herein that property in question is
situated within fully developed vicinity of Saraswati
Enclave in city Gurugram.
Petitioners have electricity, water connections and
property tax over houses subject matter of acquisition
and are regularly paying property tax to Municipal
Corporation Gurugram, electricity bills and other
requisite charges to concerned boards.
It is pertinent to mention herein that nature of land in
question being not agricultural as has been wrongly
and illegally shown by respondents is also evident
from the survey plan of Saraswati Enclave as prepared
by Municipal Corporation Gurugram.
04.10.2013 It is further apposite to mention here that Government
of Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department vide
gazette notification no. S.O. 81/H.A. 13/2013/S.
3/2013 dated 04.10.2013 whereby at Serial No. 243,
the area of 56.36 acres of colony Saraswati Enclave
in limits of Municipal Corporation Gurugram has
been declared to be civic amenities and infrastructure
deficient area.
28.08.2015 The instant petition has not been preferred for
enhancement of compensation but is seeking
directions against erring respondents to implement
statutory provisions of beneficial legislation i.e. the
Act of 2013 enacted by Central Legislature. The whole
case of the petitioners is that provisions relating to
compensation, benefits and entitlements provided
under the First, Second and Third schedules and
section 41 86 42 of the Act of 2013, if followed by

3
ts
ft
ri
p
o
rt
fr
si
il
it
at
i
et
tl
ie
p
r
is
ct
ei
tr
s
p
ir
it
ff
ic
ie
ai
rl
at
e,
h
a
il
it
at
et
tl
il
ie
ff
ct
la
d
o
r/
et
it
rs
ei
ff
ct
il
ie
d
"
is
la
il
ie
ie
ct
a
n
ct
ct
el
y.
n
e
et
it
el
it
fi
le
et
ai
le
d
je
ct
ti
fi
at
is
e
r
ct
at
al
ct
,
y,
it
st
at
p
r
rt
is
it
r
el
je
ct
si
e
r
at
et
ic
al
ti
fi
at
S
e
ct
is
it
ct
c
el
le
it
la
st
i
n
al
te
at
at
a
r
d.
st
et
it
rs
ai
ei
cl
ai
m
s/
je
ct
ic
ei
3.
0
2.
1,
y,
ta
al
b
je
ct
le
ei
at
ti
q
u
is
it
la
is
il
le
al
la
G
o
is
st
fr
ts
a
ct
ct
et
c.
ir
li
z
et
te
ti
fi
at
o
s
ti
fi
at
is
li
le
o
b
et
si
is
ta
ll
il
le
al
it
r
y
ai
st
at
al
st
ic
at
a
d
at
at
r
e
st
ct
ai
si
ti
al
h
d.
al
ai
n.
30.
06.
20
20
4
,#)
29.07.2020
31.08.2020
O 07.10.2020
0.
6.
0,
is
tri
ct
ev
en
ue
ff
ic
er
cu
pe
te
nt
ut
or
it
an
cq
ui
si
ti
ur
gr
pa
ss
ed
ar
n
o.
da
te
0.
6.
an
su
bs
eq
ue
nt
co
rr
ec
ti
ar
ds
da
te
d
9.
7.
0,
1.
8.
7.
0.
0,
d
et
at
la
it
u
t
si
ri
at
la
ta
e
t
ri
lt
al
at
e.
p
et
it
rs
ei
at
rs
le
p
s,
el
ls
fi
tt
fi
st
al
le
o
n
la
je
ct
at
te
is
it
ic
i
n
st
al
le
t
o
y,
ts
ti
ff
rt
is
ct
h
ta
ll
il
si
p
u
at
r
s
is
e
07.12.2020
s
e.
ot
ic
un
de
Se
ct
io
n
E(
1)
of
ct,
19
56
of
ar
vi
de
en
do
rs
en
no
56
3/
L
A
C/
da
te
07
.1
2.
20
20
pu
rp
or
te
dl
sh
to
ha
ve
be
en
is
su
ed
to
at
te
nd
an
no
un
ce
en
of
ar
to
de
li
ve
an
su
rr
en
de
po
ss
es
si
on
of
la
nd
wi
th
in
60
da
ys
Pe
tit
io
ne
rs
ca
to
kn
th
at
re
sp
on
de
nt
co
m
pe
te
nt
au
th
or
it
ha
al
re
ad
pa
ss
ed
ar
fo
str
uc
tu
re
on
11
.1
2.
20
20
wi
th
ou
an
ba
si
an
is
ak
in
ar
ra
ng
en
tS
to
ta
ke
th
po
ss
es
si
on
of
th
la
nd
in
q
ue
st
io
n
w
it
h
o
ut
pa
ss
in
g
th
e
R
eh
ab
ili
ta
ti
o
n
an
d
es
ett
le
en
w
ar
an
ak
in
pr
ov
isi
on
fo
in
fr
as
tr
uc
tu
ra
en
iti
es
hi
str
uc
tu
ra
ar
ha
al
so
be
en
pa
ss
ed
se
cr
etl
wi
th
ou
an
in
ti
ati
on
or
in
fo
ati
on
to
th
pe
tit
io
ne
rs
an
th
ey
ca
to
kn
w
5
a
b
g
t
d
a
)
o
t
i
j
e
)
o
e
n
b
r
ct
ct
3
d
ir
ct
tr
al
t.
is
ti
fi
at
o
n
it
fr
at
e
n
is
ct
at
is
is
A
ct
el
at
et
at
at
i
o
it
ir
st
le
n
d
il
it
at
et
tl
ci
fi
d
i
ir
le
s,
ei
e
n
fi
ci
al
ff
ct
il
ie
s,
al
a
s
la
is
it
ct
ts
p
e
ci
fi
rt
e
11.09.2015
d
le
a
n
t
o
s
s
a
p
2
0
p
e
e
t
n
u
t
h
n
i
s
s
c
e
t
e
a
m
t
o
n
g
n
d
o
6
cases of land acquisition under the enactment specified
in fourth schedule to the Act of 2013.
The Central Government exercising powers u/ s 9
(2) (aa) of the Act has enacted The National
Highway (manner of depositing the amount by the
central government with the competent authority for
acquisition of land), Rules, 2019 which has described
manner of depositing the amount by opening account
prior to pronouncement of award by competent
authority u/s 3(G)(1) of the Act.

Section 38 of the Act of 2013 as has been made
applicable to the land acquired under National
Highways Act, 1956 vide notification dated 28.08
2015 and Letter dated 11.09.2015 provides that not
only passing of Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Award is mandatory but payment of 100%
compensation is also required before taking the
possession of property subject matter of acquisition.
Hence, the present petition.
Place: Chandigarh (AM IN)

Date: 20.10.2022 (PH-220413) (P/619/2007), ADVOCATE
7
CHANDIGARH
26
CWP No. 9of 2022
1. Mithoo Devi aged about 57 years W/o Sh. Mukta Bahadur resident of
H.No. 18-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 6540
8055 7939, Mobile no.. 9654021099.
2. Sheela Devi aged about 42 years wife of Sh. Satish kumar resident of
8326 0307, Mobile no. 8901545898.
3. Balbir Singh aged' about 51 years S/o Sh. Jai Narain resident of H.No.
21-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no.
985925551689, Mobile no. 9899474979.
4. Pali aged about 48 years S/o Sh. Son-2 Nath resident of H.No. 17-A,
Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 6359 6682 3174,
Mobile no. 9811884181.
5. Rajinder aged about 54 years S/o Rishal Singh resident of H.
No. 23-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no. 4135
1517 9297, Mobile no. 7011267022.
6. Tejpal aged about 49 years S/o Sh. Daya Singh resident of H. No. 24-
A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram. Aadhar no.
540686515368, Mobile no. 8010554356.
7. Pavitra aged about 48 years W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar resident of H.No.
22-A, Saraswati Enclave, Kadipur, Gurugram presently residing at
Flat No. 203, Shakti Apartments, Sector-15, Part-II, Gurugram.
Aadhar no. 6621 9372 9465, Mobile no. 981086781.
8. Sumitra Devi aged about 55 years W/o Sh. Chand Singh resident of
8400 0448, Mobile no.981036781.
... Petitioners
8
Versus
1. Union of India through its Chief Secretary, office at 502-C, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways, office at Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
3. District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority, Land Acquisition
Gurugram, office at Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon.
4. National Highways Authority of India through its Project Director, Project
Implementation Unit Rewari, office at Plot No. 20, Sector-32,
Institutional Area, Gurugram 122003.
... Respondents
.0 %
Place: Chandigarh (AIVk J IN)

Date: 20.10.2022 (PH-220413) (P/619/2007), ADVOCATE
9
Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash all the
proceedings incidental and ancillary to the acquisition in
question, including:
i. The impugned Notification bearing S.O. No. 727(E) dated
05.02.2019 (published on 14.02.2019) issued under
section 3A (1) of National Highways Act, 1956.
(Annexure P-1).
ii. The impugned Notification bearing S.O. No. 151(E) dated
10.01.2020 (published on dated 25.01.2020) issued under
section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. (Annexure
P-2)
iii. The impugned Award No. 2 dated 30.06.2020 and
subsequent correction awards dated 29.07.2020, 31.08.2020
and 07.10.2020 passed by District Revenue Officer cum
Competent Authority (L.A.) Gurugram under section 3G of
the National Highways Act, 1956, (Annexure P-25 to
Annexure P-28).
iv. The impugned subsequent award no. 29 dated 11.12.2020 for
acquisition of land (Structure) passed by District
Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority (L.A.)
Gurugram under section 3G of the National Highways Act,
1956, (Annexure P-30) being illegal, null, void-ab-initio,
arbitrary. Further the same are ultra vires, violative and
contrary to:
a. The Provisions of Section 26 to 30, 31, 32, 38 and
105(3) i.e. First, Second and Third Schedule of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement

10
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 2013), the
guidelines, and rules.
b. The Notification S. O. 2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015
(Annexure P-19) issued by Government of India and
published in The Gazette of India.
c. The Letter dated 11.09.2015 issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Govt. of India. (Annexure P-32)
d. The Statutory provisions of section 4 to 6 86 16 to 19
of the Act of 2013 which provide that proper survey
and SIA study should be conducted and
comprehensive Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme/Policy should be framed before initiating
piocess of acquisition.
e. Fundamental rights of petitioners enshrined under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
f. Constitutional right to property of petitioners
enshrined under Article 300-A of Constitution of
India.
g. Environmental laws of the country.
AND
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, commanding the respondents and each
one of them, their men, servants, agents, associates,
subordinates, administrators and assignees to:
i. Conduct proper survey and pass alignment accordingly,

ii. Prepare a comprehensive Rehabilitation Policy Framework
(RPF) and conduct the Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
Study on the lines of RPF (Annexure P-34) and SIA
(Annexure P-35) study framed and conducted by the
MORTH, Govt. of India for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma-

11
Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Ras Beawar-
Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E
Paderu-Araku, NH-516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C &
NH 731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah projects,
as the petitioners are claiming parity to the
landowners/persons affected in such projects.
iii. Issue Notification u/s 3A(1) (including all other incidental
proceedings) afresh according to fresh survey.
iv. Update the land revenue record and revise the market value
of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that
area as contemplated in second last proviso to section 26
of the Act of 2013.
v. Pass Award for land afresh including compensation for
fully furnished residential houses, fixed assets and other
structures and things permanently fastened or attached to
land subject matter of acquisition in view of section 26 to
30 and First schedule of the Act of 2013 and
vi. Pass the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in view
of section 31, 38 and 105(3) and Second schedule of the
Act of 2013 to provide constructed houses and other
structures for the residential houses and other structures
and fixtures lost by the petitioners by the acquisition in
question, and
vii. Make provisions for infrastructural facilities and basic
amenities, in resettlement area as per Third schedule and
section 32, 38 and 105(3) of the Act of 2013, and
viii. Decide each and every objection/claim filed and
representation given by petitioners u/s 3-A-C(1) to 3-G of
National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as Act of

12
1956) at appropriate stage, in view of relevant statutory
provisions by passing speaking order, and
ix. Provide or make provision for new electricity connections
from DHBVNL in place of connections lost due this
acquisition, and
x. Provide adequate amount of compensation for the structures
which are not subject matter of acquisition but would be
damaged/rendered non-livable/unusable during course of
demolishing structures subject matter of acquisition,
xi. To acquire the remaining marginal portion of land left out
from acquisition (if any),
xii. Make a specific provision that construction would be permitted
on remaining part of land and Central and State Rules of "No
Construction Zone" or requirement of CLU or NOC would
not apply to remaining part of the land left un-acquired.
xiii. Make payment of 100 percent compensation in view of Section
3H(1), 3H(2) of Act of 1956, Section 38 of the Act of 2013
and Manner of depositing amount by central government with
competent authority for acquisition of land, Rules, 2019
before taking possession of the land and structures in
question.
And
The respondents their men, servants, agents, associates,
subordinates, administrators and assignees be restrained from
taking possession of properties subject matter of acquisition
without redressing grievances of petitioners in compliance to
constitutional and statutory provisions, rules, letters, guidelines,
notifications and corrigendum issued by Central or State govt. in

13
that regard and as done by respondents for similar situated persons
affected by acquisition of their land for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma-
Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Ras-Beawar-Mandal, NH-516E
Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH-516E Koyyuru-
Paderu, NH-730C 86 NH-731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah
projects.
And
Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India asking respondent competent authority that under
which authority of law he has given a finding like a civil court that land
subject matter of this acquisition even though is situated in a colony
named as Saraswati Enclave measuring 56.36 acres within the limits of
Municipal Corporation, Gurugram as per the Gazette Notification
bearing no. SO 81/H.A.13/ 2013/S.3/2013 dated 04.10.2013 issued by
Urban Local Bodies Department, Government of Haryana (Annexure
P-18) whereby said colony was declared to be civic amenities and
infrastructure deficient areas. Thus has wrongly and illegally decided to
consider all these houses, structures as agricultural land.
And
Order may kindly be passed against the erring respondents to impose
penalty for willful contravention of the provisions of section 84(3), 85 and
87 of the Act of 2013.
And
Issue any other order writ or direction in favour of petitioners which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the petitioners are law abiding citizens of India and
permanent residents of Gurugram, State of Haryana and are thus entitled
and competent to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of
their grievances.
2. That respondents are departments/instrumentalities of the Union
of India and the State of Haryana, hence to be construed as 'State' under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the reliefs sought for can be
redressed by the same.
3. That the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of
India has acquired the residential property owned and possessed by
petitioners situated at Sarawati Enclave Colony, Kadipur, Gurugram
which falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurugram for
purpose of building (widening/four laning etc.), maintenance,
management and operation of NH-352W (Gurugram-Pataudi-Rewari
Road) on stretch of land from Km 0 to K.M. 45 (Mini Secretariat,
Gurugram) in the Village Kadipur, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram, in
the State of Haryana. Copy of notification dated 05.02.2019 issued under
Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956 published in newspaper on 14.02.2019
is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1. Further, copy of notification
bearing S.O. No. 151(E) dated 10.01.2020 issued under section 3 D (1) of
the Act of 1956 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.
4. That the land/property of petitioners subject matter of
acquisition is shown to be comprised in khasra no. 32/ /7 min (2-10). It
is submitted herein that their residential houses, constructed staircase,
spread foundation, load bearing RCC Pillar rooms, super quality toilets
with washroom facilities, proper sewerage and drainage system and fruit
bearing and non-fruit bearing trees are situated and existing upon the
land subject matter of acquisition. The details of the properties of the
petitioners which have been acquired by the respondents are as under:
Detailed description of property as per section 3[A] Notification:-
Sr. No. Petit Khasra Type of Land Nature of Area of

in ione No. Property Hec.
3A r
Notific no.
ation
46 1 32/ /7 Non-Agriculture Private 0.4047000
Detailed description of property as per section 3[D] Notification
Sr. No. Peti Khasra Type of Land Nature of Area of

in t No. Property Hec.
3A ione
Notifica r
tion no.
That acquisition in question is involuntary acquisition rather
it is against wishes and intention of petitioners because this proposed

project is going to demolish a number of residential accommodations of
petitioners situated on land subject matter of this proposed acquisition.
They and their families are residing upon land subject matter of
acquisition. The houses and other structures have been renovated/
reconstructed and extended from time to time as per modern facilities
and requirements of the day. Some of petitioners have purchased the land
under acquisition with their hard earned money to build it and even
though name of some of petitioner is not being reflected in revenue
record, however they are owners in possession by virtue of registered
sale deeds in their favor respectively, which can be verified by
respondents and/or petitioner will place on record as and when directed
by this Hon'ble Court.
It is submitted herein that property in question is situated
within fully developed vicinity of Saraswati Enclave in city Gurugram and
is well connected to the main road. The structures and houses of petitioners
situated on land in question are fully equipped with modern facilities as per
need of day and are new one and are renovated from time to time by
spending huge amount of money. The houses of petitioners situated on
property subject matter of acquisition is evident from the photographs of
houses of petitioner as per their serial in memo of parties are attached
herewith as Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-10.
Moreover, petitioners have electricity, water connections and
property tax over houses subject matter of acquisition and are regularly
paying property tax to Municipal Corporation Gurugram, electricity bills
and other requisite charges to concerned boards. Some of petitioners are
also paying income tax to Government of India. Copies of electricity bills,
property tax are annexed herewith as Annexure P-11 to Annexure P-16.
It is also pertinent to mention herein that nature of land in
question being not agricultural as has been wrongly and illegally shown by
respondents is also evident from the survey plan of Saraswati Enclave

as prepared by Municipal Corporation Gurugram which shows that land
in question is fully developed and is surrounded by Sector 10-A,
Industrial Sector 37-A, Sector 37 Pace City-2, Sector 37-B, 37-C
developed by HUDA and Kadipur Industrial Area and Kadipur Enclave
and therefore is not an ordinary agricultural land. The copy of survey
plan of Saraswati Enclave is attached as Annexure P-17.
It is further apposite to mention here that Government of
Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department vide gazette notification no.
S.O. 81/H.A. 13/2013/S. 3/2013 dated 04.10.2013 whereby at Serial No.
243, the area of 56.36 acres of colony Saraswati Enclave in limits of
Municipal Corporation Gurugram has been declared to be civic amenities
and infrastructure deficient area. The copy of notification dated
04.10.2013 is attached as Annexure P-18.
5. That the idea of eminent domain as a power peculiar to the
sovereign authority or government to take private property for public use
without the owner's consent is coupled with a duty to pay fair and just
compensation alongwith all entitlements and statutory benefits. The idea
comes from 17th-century natural law jurists as Hugo Grotius and Samuel
Pufendorf. The English practice in the early 17th century was for
Parliament to authorize the taking of property and either to prescribe the
amount to be paid or to provide a judicial proceeding to determine it. The
proceeding was held without the presence of the owner. With the passage
of time, judicial procedures were developed enabling the owner to be
heard on question of compensation. But in India, our land acquisition
authorities are still living in 17 century despite of the fact that our land
acquisition law has been developed with passing of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (replacing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). In
case in hand, entire residential houses, structures and superstructures
of petitioners are subject matter of this acquisition

as such they are going to be displaced/homeless and landless
persons due to acquisition in question but respondents have
deliberately missed to follow the procedure prescribed by law to
provide them compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement
benefits and entitlements to which petitioners are lawfully entitled
in view of the Act of 2013. In this prevalent acquisition proceedings
/procedure followed by requiring body and competent authority,
landowners have no say in determination of compensation. No doubt,
affected persons are provided an opportunity to file their objections and
claims in view of section 3C(1) and 3G(3) of National Highways Act of
1956 but Competent Authorities for land Acquisition in the State of
Haryana are in practice of rejecting all such objections and claims in
one line without application of mind, the same practice has been opted
in the case in hand.
6. That involuntary displacement creates feelings of insecurity,

anxiety and misunderstanding among Project Affected Persons. Social
Impact Assessment and public community participation helps to remove
such uncertainties. Keeping this in view, the Central Legislature has
enacted specific provisions qua the same in the Act of 2013. But the
respondent NHAI and competent authority have deliberately violated the
mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 as they had neither conducted
any Social Impact Assessment nor framed any Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme/Policy before initiating the acquisition proceedings
in question. As a result, they have failed to pass the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Award. In order to pass the R 8v R Award, the respondents
were duty bound to take certain preliminary steps i.e., they should have
prepared a Social Impact Assessment Report (SIA) and the Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Scheme for the displaced families.
The main objectives of the SIA are to minimize negative impact in the
project area, to make people aware of the project and to ascertain

their views and preferences. As part of the Social Impact Assessment
process, detailed consultations are required to made with all
stakeholders to identify the:
a. Impacts to the private property (title holders) consisting of:
i. Loss of private land;
0. Loss of private residential structures;
i. Loss of private commercial structures;
ii. Impacts to tenants (residential/commercial /agricultural) of
title holders; and
iii. Impacts to trees, standing crops, etc.;
b. Impacts to non-title holders consisting of impacts to
squatters and impacts to encroachers;
c. Loss of employment to agricultural and non-agricultural workers/
employees;
d. Additional assistance to vulnerable displaced persons
including the and
e. Unforeseen impacts.
In accordance with the principles of R 85 R Scheme, all
displaced households and persons are entitled to a combination of
compensation packages and resettlement assistance depending on the
nature of ownership rights on lost assets and scope of the impacts
including socio-economic vulnerability of the displaced persons and
measures to support livelihood restoration if livelihood impacts are
envisaged. The displaced persons are entitled to the following types of
compensation and assistance packages:
i. Compensation for the loss of land, crops/trees at their replacement
cost;
ii. Compensation for structures (residential/commercial) and other
immovable assets their replacement cost;
iii. Alternate housing for physical displacement;

iv. Assistance in lieu of loss of business/wage income and income
restoration assistance;
iv. Assistance for shifting and provision for relocation site and
v. Rebuilding and/or restoration of community resources/
facilities.
7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the families of married
sons, grandsons of petitioners are residing in same houses and petitioners
are recorded owners of the property. Therefore not only landowners and
their families are also covered under definition of affected Families and
Displaced Families in view of section 3(c) and 3(k) of the Act of 2013
respectively as such are entitled to all the benefits and entitlements
provided under the First, Second and Third schedule of the act of 2013.
8. That the instant petition has not been preferred for
enhancement of compensation but is seeking directions against erring
respondents to implement statutory provisions of beneficial legislation
i.e. the Act of 2013 enacted by Central Legislature. The whole case of the
petitioners is that provisions relating to compensation, benefits and
entitlements provided under the First, Second and Third schedules and
section 41 & 42 of the Act of 2013, if followed by respondents (after
preparing a SIA Report and framing a comprehensive Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Scheme in view of the provisions of the Act of 2013) in
their true spirit, are sufficient to fairly compensate, rehabilitate and
resettle families of affected landowner/petitioners being affected families
and "displaced families in view of section 3(c) and 3(k) of the Act of
2013 respectively. As such in view of the provisions of the Act of 2013,
the Central Govt. Notification dated 28.08.2015 and other relevant
statutory provisions the respondent competent authority was duty bound
to pass the Award for land and structures as well as the R & R Award
accordingly which he has completely failed to do. The copy of the
notification S.O. 2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-19.
9. That one of petitioner namely Pavitra had filed detailed
objections to the notification issued under section 3A (1) of the National
Highway Act, 1956 whereby, it has been requested that property under
acquisition may kindly be released and objector may kindly be
considered sympathetically and notification under Section 3 (1) of Land
Acquisition Act be cancelled and withdrawn for land in question or in
alternative maximum compensation be awarded. The Copy of the
objection is annexed herewith as Annexure P-20.
10. That without considering objections of landowners/
petitioners a notification no. S.O. 151(E) dated 09.01.2020 (P-2) was
issued under subsection (1) of 3(D) of the Act was published in official
gazette. By virtue of sub Section 2 of Section 3(D) of the Act land stood
vest absolutely with Central. Government. The revenue authorities have
made entries pertaining to vesting of the land with the Central Govt. in
revenue record and now petitioners/landowners/proprietors would not
mortgage, transfer, sale, exchange land in question.
11. That most of petitioners again sent their claims/objections
which were duly received on 23.02.2021, whereby, they have taken all
the objections pleading therein that notice of acquisition of land is
illegal and unlawful so the Government of Haryana is estopped from its
act, conduct etc. to acquire and publish in gazette notification regarding
the same purpose and thus present notification is liable to be set aside as
same is totally illegal, arbitrary and against natural justice and prayed
that adequate compensation of Rupees One Crore on account of
structure of said residential house be awarded. But all in vain. The

Copies of Objections to 3D Notifications filed by petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are
annexed as Annexure P-21 to Annexure P-24.
12. That on 30.06.2020, District Revenue Officer cum
Competent Authority Land Acquisition Gurugram passed Award no. 2
dated 30.06.2020 and subsequent correction awards dated 29.07.2020,
31.08.2020 and 07.10.2020, determining compensation of land without
considering nature of land and taking same to be ordinary agricultural in
nature. As stated in preceding paras, that property subject matter of
acquisition is Gair-mumkin, residential and commercial in nature but
respondent competent authority violated statutory provisions as
compensation has been determined by considering entire land as
agricultural in nature. The petitioners have their water submersible
pumps, tubewells, fittings and fixtures installed on land subject matter of
acquisition which are installed by them by spending a huge amount of
money, lots of time and efforts but this fact has been totally ignored
while passing impugned Award as such no compensation for same is
provided in the same. Furthermore, the Award has been passed
secretly without any intimation and information to the petitioners.
None of provisions of section 26 to 30, First schedule of the Act of 2013
and Annexure 4 to the Manual of Guidelines, 2017 has been followed in
their true letter and spirit while passing this award in question. The
Copy of impugned Award dated 30.06.2020 and subsequent correction
awards dated 29.07.2020, 31.08.2020 and 07.10.2020 are annexed herewith
as Annexure P-25 to Annexure P-28.
13. That petitioners time and again visited office of
respondents requesting to grant compensation at commercial rates,
to pass R & R Award in view of second and third schedule and
provide additional compensation and prepare a Development plan
in view of provisions of the Act of 2013 and petitioners were orally

assured that their grievances would be redressed and needful will be
done. But nothing has been done.
14. That notice under Section 3E(1) of NHAI Act, 1956 of award
vide endorsement no. 563/LAC/ NHAI dated 07.12.2020 purportedly
shown to have been issued to attend announcement of award to deliver
and surrender possession of land within 60 days. It is submitted herein
that a bare perusal of said award clearly shows the ambiguity in
acquisition proceedings as number of persons are shown in the column
of name of owner in khasra no. 32/ /7 with the details of structure as
house. The copy of notice dated 07.12.2020 is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-29.
That petitioners came to know that respondent competent
authority has already passed Award for structures on 11.12.2020 without
any basis and is making arrangements to take the possession of the land
in question without passing the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award
and making provision for infrastructural amenities. This
structural award has also been passed secretly without any intimation or
information to the petitioners and they came to know about the same
from some reliable sources and land pertaining to khasra no. 32//7 is
mentioned at serial no. 16 to 24 (09 Nos.) of impugned award. The Copy
of impugned Structural Award is annexed herewith as Annexure P-30.
15. That one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 7 filed
objection/petition under Section 3G(5) of the Act, the contents of the same
are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity however the copy of the
same is annexed herewith as Annexure P-31.
In view of fact that not only land but fully furnished
residential houses, other structures, trees and fittings and fixtures
including permanently affixed equipment of petitioners are also subject
matter of this acquisition, respondents, competent authority and NHAI

who were duty bound to prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Policy/Scheme for project affected persons of this acquisition, to pass
the award for land strictly in the letter and spirit of section 26 to 30 and
First Schedule, to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award in view of
section 31 and 32 i.e. Second and Third schedule of the Act of 2013, to
prepare a Development Plan for rehabilitation of project affected
petitioners, have apparently failed to perform such duty thus rendering
helpless petitioners to run from post to pillar including filing of this
present writ petition. Moreover all objections and claims submitted by
them have been completely ignored. The petitioners have approached
this Hon'ble court as a last resort to resolve their genuine grievances.
16. That section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 directs the Central
Govt. to issue a notification within one year from date of
commencement of this Act, that any of provisions of this Act relating to
determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule
and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third
Schedules, being beneficial to affected families, shall apply to cases of
land acquisition under enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. The
National Highways Act, 1956 is specified at serial no. 7 in the 13
enactments listed in fourth schedule to the Act of 2013. The provisions
of section 105(3) are hereunder reproduced for ready reference of this
Hon'ble court:
"105(3): The Central Government shall, by notification, within one
year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the
provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement
specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the
affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such
exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or ,

dilute the provisions of the Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation
and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may
be,
From bare perusal of provisions of section 105(3) of the Act of
2013, the Intention of legislature is very much clear that no exceptions or
modifications that reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this
Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement are allowed
while making the provisions of the Act of 2013 applicable.
17. That incompliance with this section 105(3) of the Act of

2013, the central government had issued certain ordinances relating to
applicability of provisions of Act of 2013 relating to determination of
compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to cases of land
acquisition under all 13 enactments specified in the Fourth schedule of the
Act of 2013 Initially the Central government has Issued RFCTLARR
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 (9 of 2014) which was promulgated on
31.12.2014 thereby inter alia, amending section 105 of the Act of 2013 to
extend the provisions of Act relating to determination of compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement to cases of land acquisition under the
enactment specified in fourth schedule to the Act of 2013. Then
RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2014) was promulgated
on 3.4.2015 to give continuity to the provisions of RFCTLARK
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. Afterwards, the RFCTLARR Amendment)
second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2014) was promulgated on 30.05.2015 to
give continuity to the provisions of RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance,
2014. Finally in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of
Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), the
Central government has promulgated the "Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Removal of difficulties) Order, 2015 by issuing the gazette

the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are applicable. The copy of Letter dated
11.09.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-32.
18. That even prior to notification dated 28.08.2015, the Second and
Third schedules of Act of 2013 were made applicable to acquisition
accruing on or after 01/01/2015 by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, New Delhi vide memo No. NHAI/11013/DGM/(LA 8,5
COORD. /FTS/3247/ 65906 dated 12.05.2015 by notifying that "The Right
to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013" has been adopted to be applied in the cases of land acquisition
notified u/s 3(D) of National Highways Act, 1956 accruing on or after
01.01.2015.
19. That the Central Government exercising powers u/s 9 (2) (aa)
of the Act has enacted The National Highway (manner of depositing the
amount by the central government with the competent authority for
acquisition of land), Rules, 2019 which has described manner of
depositing the amount by opening account prior to pronouncement of
award by competent authority u/s 3(G)(1) of the Act. Moreover the
executing agency is duty bound to make the amount of compensation
available within 15 days from the date of demand raised by the
competent authority. The Copy of Rules of Disbursement is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-33.
20. That Section 38 of the Act of 2013 as has been made applicable
to the land acquired under National Highways Act, 1956 vide notification
dated 28.08 2015 and Letter dated 11.09.2015 provides that not only
passing of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award is mandatory but
payment of 100% compensation is also required before taking the
possession of property subject matter of acquisition. Section 38 is hereby
reproduced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court:

"38. The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that
full payment of the compensation as well as rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the persons within a
period of 3 months for the compensation and a period of 6 months for
monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in
Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award." Moreover as
per section 38(2) of the Act of 2013, "the collector is duty bound to
ensure that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all
respects before displacing the affected families." Similarly Section 3(H)
(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that "the amount
determined under Section 3(G) shall be deposited by the Central
Government in such manner as may be laid down by Rules made in their
behalf by that Goverrunent, with the competent authority before taking
possession of the land".
21. That in view of provisions of the Act of 2013, petitioners are
entitled to and respondents are duty bound to:

i. Conduct survey to ascertain the existence, value houses, trees,
other structures, fixed assets and mechanism etc. upon property
in question and prepare a Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Policy/ Scheme for displaced persons and their families as has
been done by respondents for similar situated persons affected
by acquisition of their land for NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gummu
Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-158 Rus-Beawar-Mandal,
NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH
516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C & NH-731K Bewar-Pilibhit,
NH-92 Bewar-Etawal projects.
ii. Prepare a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment Report in view
of section 4 to 6 of the Act of 2013 as has been done in the case of
acquisition of land for the above said projects.

iii. Make a Development plan for the project affected families of
petitioners in view of section 41 of the Act of 2013,
iv. Determine value of land along with buildings, structures and things
attached and affixed to it in view of section 20 to 30, First schedule
of the Act of 2013,
v. Award solatium (100%) and award an amount calculated at the rate
of 12% pa on market value of property, in view of section 30 of the
Act of 2013,
vi. Pronounce individual Awards in view of section 30(2) of the Act of
2013,
0. Pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award and to make
provisions for infrastructural facilities and basic amenities and
other benefits entitlements as per section 31(1), 32, 38, 105(3)
Second and Third Schedule of the Act, 2013 before proceeding
further
i. To pay the entire amount of compensation and all the benefits and
entitlements to the petitioners before displacing them in view of
section 382) of the Act of 2013.
But unfortunately in case in hand, none of entitlement
mentioned above has either been paid or tendered. In fact
rehabilitation and resettlements award has not been passed at
all so question of payment does not arise as such it is sheer
violation of mandatory provisions of law, rules, notifications
and guidelines mentioned above. Not only this, the respondent
authorities are attempting to take possession of the land in
question by demolishing residential houses and other
structures of petitioners without passing R & R Award and
making provision for infrastructural amenities in
resettlement area. Shockingly, the public notice to take
possession of land and structures was published even prior

to passing of supplementary award i.e., other part of Award
for land. In view of all these illegalities, acquisition process
in question does not stand in the eyes of law and principles
of natural justice. Thus deserves to be declared null and
void.
It has been held by Hon'ble DB of Allahabad High court in
case titled Ashok Kumar and Another v/s State of U.P. and others cited
as 2005 All 1,,J (364) DB that where no procedure was followed as
envisaged in Land Acquisition Act while acquiring land of petitioners,
the High handed action of state is wholly illegal and violative of Article
300-A of the constitution of India and state was directed either to
restore possession of Land in question to the petitioners or to pay
compensation with exemplary cost.
22. That residential houses and other structures of petitioners

and other similar situated persons stood acquired as such Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Award as specified in the Second schedule of the Act,
2013 was required be passed as per the provisions contained in section
31(1) 38(1) and 105(3), Second schedule of the Act, 2013. The
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award contemplated by provisions of
Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 not only fairly and
transparently compensate petitioners/landowners affected by compulsory
acquisition but also rehabilitate and resettle them in the way they were
settled before the acquisition in question. This Award in the letter and
spirit of Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 is an Award
which restores the monetary, psychological and social damages suffered
by the affected landowners due to the involuntary acquisition and
provides them financial capacity to resettle their habitat and business in
the way they were settled prior to the acquisition of their land, residence
and sources of livelihood. As per the Merriam-Webster

dictionary, the word rehabilitation means NOTE 1. Details of each
component of infrastructural amenities mentioned under column (2) against
serial numbers to 25 should be indicated by the acquirer of land.
23. That by pronouncing impugned award, carrying a number of

illegalities like change of recorded nature of land, absence of
compensation for structures, trees and fixed assets, passing it without
deciding objections filed by petitioners and not passing individual
Awards, competent authority has completely violated not only abovesaid
statutory provisions but also the provisions of notifications/regulations/
guidelines/circulars issued by central government in this regard. As
such indulgence of this Hon'ble Court is immediately required so that
compliance of such statutory provisions to provide adequate lawful
compensation in view of First schedule, alternative residential
places/constructed houses, infrastructural amenities and other benefits as per
Second and Third schedule and Section 31, 32, 38, 105((3) of the Act of
2013 can be provided to petitioners.
24. That it is well settled proposition of law that writ petition

under Article 226/227 is well maintainable if the government authority
fails to comply with the statutory provisions of an Act enacted by the
Central or State Legislature, Notifications, Rules, Guidelines and
Corrigendum issued by the Central or State Government The present
writ petition under Article 226/227 is maintainable and deserves to be
allowed for the following reasons in addition to grounds enumerated in
the succeeding and preceding paras.
a) Because the respondents are not only violating the statutory
provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Act of 1956 but sig letters,
Rules, Guidelines. Notifications issued by MORTH or NHAI, the
Government of India,
b) Because the respondent NHAI has failed to conduct the Social

Impact Assessment (BIA) study, prepare a Social Impact
Assessment Pan and to publish the Social Impact Assessment
Report in view of section 4 to 6 of the Act of 2013. As per the
provisions of these sections, the requiring authority is bound to
take into consideration the impact that the project is likely to have
on various components such as livelihood of affected families,
public and community properties, assets and infrastructure
particularly roads, public transport, drainage, sanitation, sources
of drinking water, sources of water for cattle, community ponds,
grazing land, plantations, public utilities such as post offices, fair
price shops, food storage godowns, electricity supply, health care
facilities, schools and educational or training facilities, anganwadis,
children parks, places of worship, land for traditional tribal
institutions and burial and cremation grounds.
Moreover as per para 3.10(iii) of the Guidelines of 2018, an
obligation has been imposed on the requiring body to undertake
DRONE/LIDAR survey in the process of determination of
alignment/ preparation of details for Section 3A notification. But
unfortunately, till date no concerned official has made any
personal or expert visit to conduct survey to ascertain the
existence, value and condition of the residential houses, shops,
workshop, cattle sheds, fruit and non-fruit bearing trees, other
structures, super structures, fixed assets and mechanism ete upon
the land in question, so assurance, expectation, probability for
preparing and publishing such SIA study, R & R Award at this
belated stage does not arise at all
c) Because respondent NHAI has failed to prepare Resettlement
Scheme in view of section 16 to 20 of the Act of 2013 for the
rehabilitation of project affected families. This Scheme was very

much necessary to be made in order to pass the R & R Award. The
fact of non preparation of this R & R scheme shows the malafide
intention of the respondents that they had no intention to pass the R
& R Award. It is a matter of record that till date no R & R Award
has been passed by the respondent competent authority. The
provisions of section 16 to 20 of the Act are reproduced as under
for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court;
"16. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme
by the Administrator-(1) Upon the publication of the preliminary
notification under sub section (1) of section 11 by the Collector,
the Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall
conduct a survey and undertake a census of the affected families,
in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed, which
shall include
(a) particulars of lands and immovable properties being
acquired of each affected family,
(b) livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless
whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being
acquired;
(6) The Administrator shall, on completion of public hearing submit
the draft Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement along with a
specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public
hearing to the Collector.
17. Review of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme.
(1) The Collector shall review the draft Scheme submitted
under sub-section (0) of section 16 by the Administrator
with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at
the project level constituted under section 45. (2)The
Collector shall submit the draft Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme with his suggestion the

Commissioner Rehabilitation and Resettlement for approval
of the Scheme.
18. Approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be
made public- The Commissioner shall cause the approved
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be made
available in the local language to the Panchayat
Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may
be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be
published on the affected areas, in sh manner as may be
prescribed, and uploasted on the website of the
appropriate Govt.
0. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement-(1)When the appropriate Government is
satisfied, after considering the report, ony made under sub-
section (2) of section 18 that any particular land is needed
for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that
effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the
resettlement area for the purposes of rehabilitation anal
resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and
seal of a Secretary to such Government un f any other
officer duty authorized to certify its orders and different
declarations may be maile from time to tow respect of
different parcels of any land covered by the same
preliminary notification trespective of whether one report
or different reports has or have been made wherever
required) (2) The Collector shall publish a mummary of the
Rehabitation and Resettlement Scheme along with
declaration referred to in sub- section (1): Provided that no
declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless

the suironary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme
is published along with such declaration Where no
declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve
months from the date of preliminary notification, then such
notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded
Provided that in computing the period referred to
in this sub section, any period or periods during which the
proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on
account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court
shall be excluded: Provided further that the appropriate
Government shall have the power to extend the period of
twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist
justifying the same: Provided also that any such decision
to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the
same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of
the authority concerned.
20. Land to be marked out, measured and planned
including marking of specific areas. The Collector shall
thereupon cause the land, unless it has been already
marked out under section 12, to be marked out and
measured, and if no plan has been made thereof, a plan to
be made of the sume.
d) Because respondent MORTH, Govt. of India has also initiated and

undertaken process of acquisition of land for maintenance,
construction and widening of 8 other National Highways namely
NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi,
NH-158 Ras-Beawar Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram,
NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH-SIGE Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C 86
NH 731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah Road. It is very
shocking to observe that a comprehensive Resettlement Policy

Framework (RPF), April 2021, Social Impact Assessment and
Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan providing all the benefits
and entitlements provided by the Act of 2013 alongwith other
statutes, rules and policies to the land losers, proprietors,
employees, agricultural laborers, tenants, encroachers, street
vendors and their families has been prepared by respondents for
similar situated persons affected due to acquisition of land and
structures for these above named national highways. But it is not
understandable that why such kind of resettlement policy
framework and detailed SIA Report has not been prepared in case
of acquisition in hand when both of acquisitions are conducted by
the NHAI and are for linear projects ie, widening or construction
of National Highways. This act and conduct of opting double
standards by the respondent MORTH and NHAI amounts injustice
and discrimination with the present petitioners by the respondent
MORTH and the NHAI, Govt of India. This act of respondents
amounts to discrimination and infringement of fundamental right
to equality of the petitioners enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Some of the countable instances
discrimination/differences are under:
a. It has been categorically provided in para 11 of the RPF (P-
23 vol 1 pg. no. 7) that the provisions of RFCTLARR Act,
2013 are applicable to all the above named projects:
b. In para 15 of RPF at running page 11, under head of

resettlement principles to be adopted for projects, it has
been stated that it is to be ensured that displaced persons
even without titles to land or any recognizable legal rights
are eligible for resettlement assistance and compensation
for loss of non-land assets at replacement value. Secondly
under above para it has also been specified that pay

compensation and provide all resettlement entitlements
before physical or economic displacement and
commencement of civil work in that stretch.
c. In para 15 of RPF at running page 13, in addition to
entitlements provided in section 31 and Second Schedule,
provision has been made to provide some other extra
emoluments and entitlements.
d. In para 21 of RPF at running page 16, it has been directed
that all compensation and assistance will be paid to
project affected persons at least one month prior to
displacement of dispossession of assets
e. In para 22 of RPF at running page 16-17, it has been
categorically been stated that prior to taking possession of
land and properties the compensation will be fully paid and
affected persons will have the opportunity to harvest crops/
trees within 15 days from the date of payment of
compensation.
f. In para 25 of RPF at running page 17, it has been provided
that the PIU/District Administration will pass a separate
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award listing the names
of displaced persons and their in accordance with the
RPF.
g. In para 29 of RPF at running page 17, it has been mentioned
that SIA of the displaced persons will be undertaken in each
sub-project so as to determine the magnitude of
displacement and prospective losses, identify vulnerable
groups for targeting, ascertain costs of resettlement and
prepare a resettlement and rehabilitation program for
implementation.
h. In para 29(d) of RPF at running page 17, it has been provided
that sucio-economic survey shall be carried out using a
structural questionnaire that would capture details of
standard of living, inventory of assets, sources of income,
level of indebtness, profile of household members, health
and sanitation, access to services and facilities, perceived
benefits and impacts of the projects and resettlement
preferences for impacted households likely to be displaced.
0. In para 41 of RPF at running page 23, it has been stated that
ensure distribution of resettlement and rehabilitation policy
and entitlement matrix for the project to project affected
persons and ensure release of compensation and assistance
before taking over the possession of land for start of
construction work.
a. In para 43 of RPF at page 25, the respondents have
specified that the highest value of land obtained by the
three methods mentioned in section 26 and Schedule 1 of
the RFCTLARR will be presented by the Project
Authority and approved by the committee as the
replacement cost. Similarly, latest schedule of rates of the
concerned districts shall be used for obtaining
replacement cost of structures.
b. In para 54 of RPF at running page 29 it has been provided that
the resettlement budget will comprise itemized estimate of
compensation for land, structures, trees, crops, resettlement
assistances.
1. In para 56 of RPF at running page 30 it is stated that
release of compensation and assistance are to be done

before taking over the possession of land for start of
construction work.
m. In para 6.4 of SIA for NH-707 (P-24) at its page 54-55 it has
been provided that: Replacement land shall be an option for
compensation in the case of loss of land. In case of
unavailability of replacement land, cash-for land with
compensation on replacement cost option will be made
available to the PAPS; Compensation for loss of land,
structures and other assets will be based on full replacement
cost and will be paid before physical displacement of PAPS
including transaction costs;
The uneconomic residual land remaining after land
acquisition will be acquired by the project. The owner of
such land/property will have the option to seek
acquisition of his entire contiguous holding/ property
provided the residual land is less than the average land
holding of the district,
Any structure/asset rendered unviable /unsafe
because of the project shall also be considered as
affected and entitlements shall be extended
accordingly:
The affected persons who does not own land or other
properties, but have economic interests or lose their
livelihoods will be assisted as per the policy principles
described in this document;
Vulnerable groups (PAP's below poverty line (BPL),
the landless, disabled, elderly persons, women and
children, indigenous peoples) will be identified and
given additional support and assistance under the
project
n. Similarly in para 6.5 of SIA for NH-707 at its page 56 59
it has been provided that:
>For Luss of Structure the title holder would
Compensation in accordance with Sections 26 to 30
and Schedule 1 of RFCTLARR Act 2013, Right to
salvage material from affected structures, Three
months advance notice to vacate structure, For those
losing cattle shed, a one-time assistance of Rs.
28,000/- would be payable, For each affected family
of an artisan or self-employed or own non-agricultural
land, that is displaced and must relocate, a one-time
assistance of Rs. 28,000/- would be payable; and One-
time subsistence grant of Rs 40,000/- for each affected
family who are displaced and require to relocate; One-
time financial assistance of Rs. 60,000/-
for each displaced family towards
shifting/ transportation cost for shifting of the family,
building materials, belongings and cattle, Refund of
stamp duty and registration charges for purchase of
alternative houses/shops at prevailing rates on the market
value as determined, Alternative houses/shops must be
bought within a year from the date of payment of
compensation
> For a house lost, a constructed house shall be provided
as per the Indira Awas Yojana specifications or
equivalent cost of the constructed house in lieu, shall be
payable.
> In case of partial impact, 25% additional award to
be paid on compensation award for the affected part
of the structure to enable damage repair where the

owner/occupier of his/her own will, interested to retain
the remaining part of the structure, provided the
unimpaired continuous use of such structure is possible
without hazards.
> If as a result of land acquisition, the land owner
becomes landless or is reduced to the status of a
"small" or "marginal" farmer, assistance amount of
Rs. 6 lakhs OR annuity policies that shall pay not less
than two thousand rupees per month for each affected
land owner for twenty years with appropriate
indexation to the Consumer Price Index for
Agricultural Labourers,
> Each land owner shall be given a one-time
"Resettlement Allowance of Rs. 60,000/- only For
loss of shop: Compensation at PWD HSR without
depreciation for structure, One-time subsistence grant
of Rs. 40,000, One-time rehabilitation grant of Rs
28,000/ Shifting/transportation assistance of Rs.
60,000/- are to be provided.
>For Livelihood losers, the subaistence allowance
equivalent to Minimum Wages/Minimum Agricultural
Wages for 3 months is provided.
Additional Support to Vulnerable Group: One time
Resettlement Allowance of Rs 60,000/-, Training
for skill development. This assistance includes cost
of training and financial assistance for travel/
conveyance and food, additional Subsistence Grant
of Rs. 60,000/- for displaced families belonging to
Scheduled Caste and Tribe Category, Displaced
vulnerable households will be linked to the

government welfare schemes, if found eligible and not
having availed the scheme benefit till date.
But in the case of this present acquisition, none of the
above mentioned entitlements or benefits are provided
to the petitioners. There is not even mention of
providing any of the same in the future also. In fact no
RPP or SIA is prepared then no question of providing
such benefits arise. Rather the possession notices are
issued even prior to the passing of the half part of the
Award for land, which is not only an apparent
violation of the statutory provisions but also of the
Fundamental right to equality of the petitioners
enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India.
The copies of Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF),
April 2021 and Social Impact Assessment and
Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan prepared in
above said projects are annexed herewith as
Annexure P-34 & P-35.
e) Because the competent authority has completely failed to
decide
objections submitted by the petitioners u/s 3-C(1) and 3-G(3) of the
Act of 1956, in the latter and spirit of statutory provisions and the
Manual of Guidelines, 2018. The detailed objections filed by the
petitioners have been rejected in one line without passing any
speaking order or by Application of mind. No opportunity of hearing
has been granted to the petitioners to hear their grievances/
objections while finalizing this compulsory acquisition process. As
per para 3.4(i) of the Manual of Guidelines, "once the CALA has
settled the objections received by him under section 3C, for which he
must pays orders with regard to each objection or categories of
objections, it is time to issue the Notification under

section 3D of the NH Act, 1956." Needless to say that it is not the
discretion or option with the competent authority to decide
objections or not. Moreover, he is not supposed to reject the
detailed objections filed by the petitioners just in one line. Rather

he is duty bound to decide each and every objection received
by him by passing a speaking order but in the case in hand, the
competent authority has not heard or decided any of the detailed
objections filed by the landowners within prescribed period of time.
Thus no weightage or consideration is given to the genuine
grievances/concerns of the petitioners, the victims of this
compulsory acquisition cum involuntary displacement that is
absolutely in contravention to the letter and spirit of the statutory
provisions of the Acts, rules, guidelines and notifications issued in
this regard. In Bhimavarapi Giridhar Kumar Reddy vs. UOI 86
Others, 2012 6 ALD 58: 2012 6 ALT 651, the Division bench of
Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High court set aside the 3D notification as
non est, because neither opportunity of personal hearing was
afforded to the petitioner before rejecting his objections nor was the
order of objection ever communicated to the petitioner. The Hon'ble
court held that "on account of this illegality, all the proceedings
subsequent to the stage under section 3-C (1) are void and
inoperative and tie fact of publication of a declaration under section
3-D (1) would not cure that fatal infirmity.
In R. Natarajan 86 Ors. Vs. UOI 86 Ors, 2010 6 CTC 337
201 1 2 ML 527, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High
Court, set aside the rejection of objection by the competent
authority and remanded back for reasoned order. In this case, the
3C(2) objection filed by the landowners was disallowed without
passing a reasoned decision, not on the ground that there was no
substance in the objection, rather on the ground that the technical

expert/consultant (NHAI) has already prepared detailed project
report, land acquisition work was started and the project work is
under progress. The objection was also disallowed on the ground
that since the land is acquired for public interest and
compensation is paid under section 3-G of the Act, the objection
so raised is bound to be rejected. The Hon'ble High court held that
although the authority was exercising the statutory duty to invite
objection, hear the parties and take a decision either allowing or
disallowing the objection, the authority was bound to assign valid
reasons (para 18 and 23).
Because the competent authority has not furnished the copy of
remarks rejecting 3-C objections the petitioners/landowners, they
have come to know about the factum of rejection of their
objections in the Notification issued u/s 3-D of the Act of 1956
The petitioners have found a single line mentioned pertaining to
rejection of detailed objections submitted by them within the
prescribed period of time. Although it is not specifically
incorporated in Section 3-C of the Act of 1956 that a copy of the
remarks furnished by CAL should be given to the landowners yet
the principles of natural justice warrant such furnishing of the
copy of remarks to the landowners so as to put forth their case. In
Shanmughn Arts, Science, Technology and Research Academy vs.
Union of India 85 Ors. 2009 (5) MIJ 15S, the Hon'ble Madras
High court has held that non furnishing of a copy of the remarks
rejecting 3C objection to the landowner is fatal and therefore the
matter was remanded back to the CALA for reasoned order and
furnishing, a copy of the rejection after such order to the
landowners.
Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality
while passing the Award for land as it has determined the

compensation of vacant land at first and then award for structures
has been pronounced separately whereby, cost of bricks, cement,
sand, gravel and grit etc. has been assessed. It is a grave violation
not only of First Schedule to the Act of 2013 but also of the
Manual of Guidelines, 2018 issued by the MORTH, Govt. of India
wherein CALA is duty bound to provide the compensation for
structures, and other assets attached to land and buildings along
with compensation for land by passing one common Award. It is
not optional for the competent authority to pass the award in
installments, in contradiction to such provisions of law. Moreover
the respondents are portraying such structural award as a
replacement of the R & R Award which can in no way be a
replacement of the R & R Award because it is just an assessment of
the value of bricks and other construction material not more than
that and is just one component of the compensation package
provided under First schedule of the Act of 2013 that is mentioned
at its step no. 4. The R & R Award provides for complete
rehabilitation and resettlement of the entire project affected
persons/families i.e. not only landowners or proprietors and their
families but every such person who was directly and indirectly
affected due to the acquisition in question. As per second and third
schedules of the Act of 2013, the R & R Award provides a
complete package of benefits and entitlements for the project
affected persons and families.
The legislature while enacting the Act of 2013 has
annexed the First schedule depicting the step-wise calculation of
compensation to remove the entire ambiguities to protect the
interests of landowners. And calculation of compensation for
assets attached to land, trees and buildings is specified at its step
no. 4 which is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 29

of the Act of 2013. But while passing the impugned Award the
competent authority has intentionally skipped Step No. A i.e.,
determination of the value of assets attached to land or building and
proceeded to Step No. S. It is categorically mentioned at Step No. 5
that it has to calculate the Solatium it, at Step No. 5 on the amount
assessed by adding the value of land arrived after applying multiplier
factor with the amount of compensation to be paid for
buildings/structures and trees. The competent authority has made a
willful violation of the statutory provisions.
Moreover as per para 5.8 of the Manual of Guidelines, 2017,
it is mandatory for the competent authority to calculate the
compensation for land by following a set pattern only. As per
Annexure-4 to such guidelines it is specifically mentioned that the
method to calculate the total amount of compensation is to be
followed step-wise. And calculation of compensation for assets
attached to land trees and buildings is specified at its step no. 3,
which is to be calculated as per the provisions of section 29 of the
Act of 2013. Para 5,8 of the said Guidelines is reproduced
hereunder for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court
"5.8 It may be noted that the computation of different
components of the total compensation is in seriatum and
sequential from Section: 26 to Section 30 of the RPICLARR Act,
2013. Keeping the aforesaid opinion of the Ld. Attorney General
in view, and the fact that the payment of amount under Section
30(3) has been prescribed as "In addition..." after the provision for
payment of solatium, it is clarified that it would be payable as a
stand-alone component and shall not count for the purposes of
Multiplication Factor and the Solatium.
It is not optional or discretionary for the competent
authority to follow such step-wise compensation calculation

method because as per the illustration provided in such
Annexure it is specifically mentioned as its heading "Action
in sequence" making it obligatory for the competent
authority to assess the value of assets attached to the land.
Furthermore a similar provision is also provided in the
Manual of Guidelines, 2018 at its sub-para (iii) of para 3.5.1
wherein the said pattern is provided to be followed in steps.
Similarly at para 3.5.6 iv) of these Guidelines, the method
of calculation of the compensation amount is shown with
the help of an illustration wherein the same set pattern is
reproduced under the title "action in sequence means no
deviation there from is expected. As per para 3.5.4 of the
Manual of Guidelines, 2018, "Apart from determination the
basic market value of the land under acquisition, the CALA
has to take into account the value of assets attached to such
land. These assets may be in the form of built-up structures,
fruit trees, normal trees, any other such assets..."
But it is very unfortunate that the in apparent
violation to such mandatory provisions of law and
guidelines, the CALA has categorically mentioned in the
impugned award foe land dated 06.07.2021 that
compensation for buildings/structures/trees/ fruit bearing
plants/tubewells/any other assets attached to the land will
be announced subsequently. Hence on this ground only
both of the impugned awards deserve to be set aside being
null and void.
h) Because the impugned Supplementary/ Structural Award has
been
passed in a very casual manner. No specific amount has been
shown to be awarded to a particular loss of asset or structure in
acquisition in question. Although one annexure is mentioned to
be attached with this impugned award but despite of applying

certified copy and making repeated requests, the respondent CALA
has not provided the same.
i)Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality
while passing the Award for land by giving a finding like a civil
court that the land even though converted to residential houses,
commercial shops and other structures is either situated amongst
agricultural fields or being used for agricultural purposes only
thus having only agricultural potential in the present form and
decided to consider all these houses, structures as agricultural
land. This observation by the competent authority to save the skin
of respondent NHA1, is contrary to the revenue record and
Notifications under section 3A & 3D wherein the land of certain
petitioners is shown as Gair mumkin. It is pertinent to mention
here that the competent authority is appointed by the Central Govt.
to calculate the just and fair compensation by determining the
market value of the land subject matter of acquisition in view of
section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is not been vested with the power
or jurisdiction to give finding (as mentioned above) like a civil
court.
The competent authority has apparently violated the
provisions of para 3.13.3 (n) of the Manual of Guidelines 2018
whereby the role and responsibility is imposed upon him to check
that the nature of land reflected in the 3A Notification is as per
Revenue Records. It means whatever nature of the land is reflected
in the revenue records the same should be specified in the 3-A
Notification thus no question of jurisdiction of the competent
authority to change the same arises at all. It can initiate the due
process for such kind of change if any landowner himself files a
claim pertaining to the same and this competence is with him only
prior to the 3D Notification but not after that. According to para

3.4(v) of these guidelines, if the competent authority has found
that the nature of land in revenue record is not in accordance with
the 3-A or 3-D then such a mistake can be remedied by issuing a
corrigendum by MORTH. The said Guidelines provide that any
such inconsistency need to be urgently brought to the notice of the
Ministry by CALA through the concerned officers of the
implementing agencies for issuing the required corrigendum in
time but certainly before determination of market value by the
CALA. It means if any kind of inconsistency is there, CALA
himself is not competent to change the recorded nature of land and
the Ministry by issuing a corrigendum can do the needful before
the determination of compensation by the CALA. Here in the case
in hand, the nature of land is apparently recorded as pair-mumkin
house in the revenue record of the land, but in the impugned
Award that nature of the land has been changed by the competent
authority which is bad in the eyes of law.
Furthermore, para 3.5.3(x) of such Manual of Guidelines,
provides that once the stage of section 3-D has been crossed, the
CALA would not have the liberty to allow such change in the
nature/category of land, unless so directed by a Court of Law.
Thus the competent authority has exceeded its jurisdiction
because he cannot sit to examine the potential or non-potential of
any property rather he is duty bound to pass the Award as per
recorded nature of the land subject matter of acquisition. This sole
illegality committed by the competent authority is sufficient to set
aside the Award in question.
Because the competent authority has also given an anarchist
observation that some of the properties consist of homesteads i.e.,
houses built over agricultural land and surrounded by agricultural
fields and are as such situated away from the village settlement.
This is isolated use of agricultural land for residential or
agricultural purpose building area which has only
agricultural potential in the present form.
In view of the above stated guidelines, it is
completely unlawful for the competent authority to give
such observation by exceeding its jurisdiction. It is quite
surprising that under which capacity the competent
authority has given such kind of arbitrary observation
because this authority is not at all established to change
the recorded nature of the land rather the authority has
to determine the compensation obliging the recorded
and real facts pertaining to nature of land, existence of
residential houses, shops and keeping in view the present
use of land, so that justice could be done with the poor
landowners.
Moreover, this Hon'ble Court is well versed with the
fact that whenever a new residential colony or a commercial
market comes into existence or is established in Haryana it is
always established on the agricultural land or we can say is
surrounded by the agricultural fields, it doesn't mean that that
colony or market is having an agricultural potential only not
fetching residential or commercial value or rates. Even
Chandigarh one of the most costliest cities is established on
and is surrounded by agricultural fields it does not mean that
it's not having any commercial potential. Thus both of the
impugned awards are not only void, illegal, arbitrary but
contrary and violative to the statutory provisions of the laws
and rules governing acquisition in question.
k) Because the respondents have failed to depict true nature of the

property in question i.e., Gair-mumkin house under the head of
nature of property in the 3-A & 3-D Notifications which is
contrary to the relevant revenue record of the land in

question i.e., Khasra Girdawaries. Copies of the Khasra
Girdawaries are annexed herewith as Annexure P-21. Despite of the
fact that specific objections pertaining to the same have been given
by the petitioners in the objections submitted us 3-C of the Act of
1956, the respondent NHAl has not bothered to correct the same in
the 3-D Notification. As such the entire acquisition proceeding all
the subsequent proceedings including issuance of Notification us 3-
D undertaken in pursuance of such incorrect and wrong Notification,
deserve to be declared null and void. It is a well settled proposition
of law that if the initial Notification under section 3-A is not in
accordance with law it renders all the subsequent steps invalid.
When the foundation goes, rest of the edifice falls, In Madhya
Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shan 86 Ors (1992) 2 SCC 168,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it if a Notification is defective
and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it is not only
vitiates the Notification but also renders all subsequent proceedings
connected with the acquisition bad.
In a similar case titled Muthalit vs. The Special
'Tehsildar, Harijan Welfare, Devakaottai 86 Ors. 1985 11MLJ 237,
the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that in case there is a
serious discrepancy between description of the land in the
Notification under section 4(1) and Declaration under section 6 of
the Land acquisition Act, 1894 and such discrepancy has caused
prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire acquisition
proceedings were quashed by the Hon ble Division Bench.
1) Because the competent authority has committed a grave illegality

by issuing the public notice u/s 3-E of the Act of 1956 on
24.08.2021 which is even prior to passing the half portion of the
Award for land i.e., the Structural Award. The competent authority
has apparently violated the statutory provisions of section 3-B of
the Act of 1956 which provides that when the amount determined
by the competent authority u/s 3-G with respect to such land has
been deposited u/s 3-H(1) with the competent authority by the
Central Govt., the competent authority can direct the owner as
well as any other person who is in possession of the land to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority.
Surprisingly no compensation for displacement for the same is
provided till date then how the respondents are issuing such kind
of notices to the petitioners. As such gross violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 is prevalent thus seeking
immediate indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. This sole illegality is
sufficient to quash all the acquisition proceedings in question. This
Hon'ble court may kindly take cognizance of this deliberate
violation of the statutory provisions and ask the respondent CALA
that how the possession notice can be issued before passing the
Award for land in entirety. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 also
filed a petition/objection under Section 3H(4) of the Act, the
contents of the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of
brevity however copy of the same duly received on dated
23.02.2021 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector/NHAI is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-36.
m) Because the competent authority has willfully/intentional missed

to pass the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in view of
section 31, 38(1) and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 and
provide the infrastructural amenities to the petitioners. The act of
passing structural award by the respondent competent authority is
an endorsement of the fact that structures are existing on the land
in question. Despite of the same, respondent has deliberately
ignored provisions of the Notification dated 28.08.2015, letter

dated 11.09.2015 issued by Central Government and the Act of
2013. Not only this, respondent competent authority had not
categorically mentioned and clarified in the award passed for land
or in the structural award that the structures situated on the land
under acquisition are residential houses etc. with malafide
intention to reduce compensation as well as other benefits which
are mandatorily required to be provided as per provisions of the
Act of 2013. Moreover detailed objections and claims have been
submitted again and again by adducing sufficient evidence before
the competent authority to prove that entire residential properties
and structures of the petitioners are going to be demolished due to
this acquisition in question as such they are going to be displaced
in the absence of any other alternative accommodation to reside.
Hence the request was made to pass the R 8v R Award and make
provision for infrastructural amenities in the resettlement area. But
the respondents have failed to comply with the mandate of sections
31(1), 32, 38, 105(3) of the Act of 2013, the provisions of manual
of guidelines of 2017 and 2108 and notification issued by the
Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India dated 28 08.2015.
As such non-passing of the R & R Award and nondisclosure of
existence of residential houses and shops is a deliberate
misconduct on the part of respondents thus rendering the
entire acquisition process infructuous attracting the penal
liability for the respondents.
n) Because none of components mentioned in the second schedule

relating to rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements has either
been paid or tendered by respondent competent authority and
after passing the structural award is going to take possession of
the land and structures. In met the rehabilitation and
resettlements award has not been passed at all so the question of

payment does not arise at all which is sheer violation of the
mandatory provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 2013. Section
38(1) provides that the Collector shall take possession of land after
ensuring that full payment of the compensation as well as
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to
the entitled persons within a period of 3 months for the
compensation and a period of 6 months for monetary part of
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in Second
Schedule commencing from the date of the award.
Moreover as per section 38(2) of the Act of 2013 the
collector is duty bound to ensure that the rehabilitation and
resettlement process is completed in all respects before displacing
the affected families.
o) Because no any demarcation or measurement has been made by

the respondents to ascertain the detailed description of structures
in question. It is also not taken into consideration that if some
portion of the houses, rooms or other structures stood acquired
then at the time of demolishing and taking possession such half
portion will make the entire structures non-livable or non usable
due to cracks or disfigurement of that portion. Hence such portion
of the structures which is not even a subject matter of acquisition
will be affected drastically causing a huge loss to the petitioners.
As per section 26 to 30 and First Schedule of the Act of 2013, in
case of partial impact, 25% additional award to be paid on
compensation award for the affected part of the structure to enable
damage repair where the owner/ occupier of his/her own is
interested to retain the remaining part of the structure provided
the unimpaired continuous use of such structure is possible
without hazards (as a provision is made in the SIA (P.) for similar
situated persons). No compensation for such kind of incidental losses
has been provided. The provision for such losses is actually made in
the R 8; R Award when die R 8; R Award has not been passed
deliberately then obviously the petitioners are kept away from such
benefits. Even in the future there is no any kind of readiness/
preparation and willingness on the part of respondents to pass such
Award.
10) Because both of the impugned awards are very questionable as
they have been passed secretly without any intimation and
information to the petitioners. The petitioners has never ever been
called or informed by the respondents while pronouncing the
impugned award for land which is not only against the law laid down
by the various High Court but also contrary to the mandate of the Act
of 2013 and the Manual of Guidelines, 2018.
q) Because the respondents have failed to provide the alternative
constructed residential houses and infrastructural amenities to
petitioners in view section 31, 32, 38 and 105(3) and Second and
Third schedule of the Act of 2013 in lieu of the houses and
structures so acquired but are going to take possession of the land
and fully furnished structures of the petitioners without passing the
R 8; R Award and providing the infrastructural amenities. Thus
there is an apparent violation of the procedure prescribed under the
Act of 2013 by virtue of which the respondent competent authority
or HAI cannot take possession of the acquired land without making
the payment of monetary compensation and
rehabilitation/resettlement entitlements of the acquired land. As
such specific instructions are required to be passed by this Hon'ble
Court prohibiting dispossession of petitioners from the

lan
un
der
acq
uisi
tio
unt
il
and
unl
ess
all
the
stat
uto
ry
ben
efit
and
ent
itle
me
nts
are
pro
vid
ed
to
the
m
by
the
erri
ng
res
po
nde
nts.
r) Be
ca
us
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
rit
vi
ola
ted
the
ma
nd
ato
ry
gu
ide
lin
es
iss
ue
by
the
Mi
nis
try
of
Ro
ad
Tr
an
sp
ort
an
Hi
gh
wa
ys,
Go
ve
rn
me
nt
of
In
dia
in
De
ce
be
20
18
wh
ich
vi
de
its
pa
ra
2.
13
(1)
pr
ov
ide
tha
the
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
rit
y
wh
ile
an
no
un
cin
the
wa
rd
4/
3G
of
the
Ac
of
19
56
sh
all
ap
pe
nd
cer
tifi
cat
at
the
en
of
the
ir /
he
wa
rd
tha
he/
sh
ha
str
ict
ly
fol
lo
we
the
leg
al
pr
ov
isi
on
s
an
gu
ide
lin
es
in
det
er
mi
nat
io
of
the
co
pe
ns
ati
on
am
ou
nt.
Bu
the
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
rit
ha
wi
llf
ull
vi
ola
ted
thi
ma
nd
ato
ry
pr
ov
isi
on
by
no
pa
ssi
ng
the
wa
rd
in
qu
est
io
in
str
ict
co
pli
an
ce
to
thi
s.
It
ha
als
co
mi
tte
da
gr
av
ill
eg
ali
ty
by
ap
pe
nd
in
the
fal
se
cer
tifi
cat
at
the
en
of
the
wa
rd
tha
the
co
pe
ns
ati
on
ha
be
en
det
er
mi
ne
in
ac
co
rd
an
ce
wi
th
the
pr
ov
isi
on
of
Ac
t,
19
56
,
the
Ac
of
20
13
rea
wi
th
ext
ant
gu
ide
lin
es
iss
ue
by
the
Mi
nis
try
of
Ro
ad
Tr
an
sp
ort
an
Hi
gh
wa
ys,
in
fur
the
ra
nc
the
re
of.
s) Be
ca
us
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
rit
ha
co
m
mi
tte
an
ap
pa
re
nt
vi
ola
tio
of
the
pr
ov
isi
on
of
pr
ov
iso
to
se
cti
on
26
of
the
Ac
t
20
13
wh
ich
pr
ov
ide
tha
the
Co
lle
cto
sh
all
be
for
ini
tia
tio
of
an
lan
ac
qu
isi
tio
pr
oc
ee
di
ng
in
an
are
a,
tak
all
ne
ce
ssa
ry
ste
ps
to
re
vis
an
up
dat
e
the
ma
rk
et
val
ue
of
the
lan
on
the
ba
sis
of
the
pr
ev
ale
nt
ma
rk
et
rat
in
tha
are
a.
Bu
t
the
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
rit
th
us
no
fol
lo
we
thi
ma
nd
ato
ry
pr
ov
isi
on
in
its
let
ter
an
d
spi
rit.
t) Be
ca
us
co
pet
ent
aut
ho
nt
ha
als
vi
ola
ted
the
pr
ov
isi
on
of
se
cti
on
30
(2)
of
the
Ac
of
20
13
as
he
ha
fai
led
to
iss
ue
in
di
vi
du
al
wa
rds
det
ail
in
the
pa
rti
cul
ars
of
co
pe
ns
ati
on
pa
ya
ble
an
det
ail
of
the
pa
me
nt
co
pe
ns
ati
on
as
sp
eci
fie
in
Fir
st
Sc
he
du
le.
or
eo
ve
on
cu
ula
tiv
rea
di
ng
of
pr
ov
isi
on
of
se
cti
on
3E, 30, 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 and section 30(2)
and 38(1) of the Act of 2013, this Hon'ble Court will observe that
the Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars
of compensation payable and the details of payment of the
compensation as specified in the First Schedule but the competent
authority has completely failed to do so.
u) Because competent authority has committed a illegality by
adopting an impartial criteria while accessing the amount of
compensation for structures as the petitioner whose more area has
been acquired is provided less amount of compensation and the
one whose less are has been acquired is provided more amount of
compensation. This only fact is sufficient to prove that the
respondent competent authority is unaware of the ground reality
for the obvious reason that no survey has been conducted before
initiating acquisition process in question.
v) Because competent authority has failed to determine the market
value of the land of petitioners in violation to the provisions of
section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is do hereby clarified that
prevailing market price for land in question is more than 50 crore
per acre. The competent authority was duty bound to determine the
average sale price of the land of petitioners in view of collector
rates for the similar type of property of city Gurugram abutting
boundary/had bast of village of the petitioners as such comes with
definition of nearest vicinity area. This claim of the petitioner is
substantiated by the statutory provision prescribed under section
26(1) b of the Act of 2013 which provides that the average sale
price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or
vicinity area. It is shocking that how the competent authority has
determined market value at rate of Rs. 5,96,29,041 per acre.

w) Because respondents have failed to make any alternative
arrangement for the shelter and sources of livelihood of the poor
petitioners and their families who have lost their only residential
houses and sources of income which is a sheer violation of the
procedure prescribed by law. As such there is an apparent
violation of the right to life and personal liberty of the petitioners
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India It is very
pertinent to mention here that due to this acquisition in question,
the petitioners and their families have been rendered jobless and
displaced/homeless. It would not be out of place to mention here
that on 24.03.2022 an application dated 11.10.2021 was got
received by the petitioners to Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram
praying therein that either appropriate compensation as per market
rate should be paid by NHAI or a house be given and petitioners
may kindly be saved from being homeless/ shelterless. The copy
of application dated 11.10.2021 duly received on 24.03.2022 is
annexed herewith as Annexure P-37.
x) Because respondents have committed a violation of the legal Right
to Property of the petitioners and their families enshrined under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No doubt as per the
doctrine of eminent domain, the sovereign has power to acquire the
private property of its citizen but it has to follow the procedure
prescribed by law. But in the case of this instant acquisition wherein
the poor petitioners/landowners/ proprietors belonging to Scheduled
caste and backward class families have lost their precious residential
and commercial properties, their only source of shelter and
livelihood, no lawful procedure has been followed to provide
compensation, benefits and entitlements to them to which they are
lawfully entitled. As such this act and conduct of the

respondents has infringed the Constitutional right to property of the
petitioner.
The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it
is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution.
In view of law laid by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hari Krishna Mandir 'Trust
vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2013, D/d.
7.8.2020 (Law finder Doc Id » 1735655):
"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any
longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a
human right as observed by this Court in "Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v.
Vatslaven Ashokbhai Patel and Others (2008) 4 SCC 649 (para 42)". In
view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no
person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The
appellant trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance
with law."
"97. Article 300A of the Constitution of India embodies the
doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) be possession
of property in the public interest; and (il) payment of reasonable
compensation. As held by this Court in plethora of decisions, including
State of Bihar and Others v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and
Others (2006 2 SCC 545, 574 (para 69); Jelubhai Nanbhai Khachar and
Others v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 596; Bishambhar
Dayal Chandra Mohan and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(1982) 1 SCC 39, the State possesses the power to take or control the
property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so
acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as

held by this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and
Others (2007) 7 SCC S55 (paras 55 and 56)."
"100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of Indie, not only have the power to
issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are
duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a
public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised
discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy
decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion
malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.
"101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of
Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an
appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the
Government or a public authority."
y) Because respondents have violated fundamental right to equality
of petitioners and their families as enshrined under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
z) Because competent authority has failed to award any compensation
for marginal portion of the land of some of the petitioners which is
left unacquired. It will not be practical or possible for the
petitioners to use this portion of land in any economical/ beneficial
way or to sell the same. Thus it will be a big problem for them to
use such land. In view of the guidelines issued by the MORTH, the
competent authority was duty bound to award compensation for
such remaining part of the land or award 25% of actual value upto
of the remaining land holding as additional compensation,
allowing the owner to retain the remaining marginal portion of
land, if agreeable. But both of the impugned awards are silent
about the same.

That it is worthwhile to bring into the notice of this
lon'ble court that the CALAs in the entire state of Haryana are
indulged in practice of passing Awards for land sans
compensation for buildings, structures, trees and other fixed assets
and thereafter they pass the structural awards portraying them as
R & R Awards with malafide intention to deceit the innocent and
helpless landowners. In this present case also, the impugned
Award has been passed by the competent authority by assessing
the value of land only as no compensation for structures have been
included in that. Now as per this prevalent practice, the authority
will pass the structural award so that the respondents can escape
from their duty to pass the R & R Award. For which the
respondents are liable for penal action in view of section 84(3), 85
and 87 of the Act of 2013.
Section 84(3) of the Act of 2013 provides that
"Disciplinary proceedings may be drawn up by the disciplinary
authority against a Government servant, who if proved to be guilty
of a malafide action in respect of any provision of this Act, shall be
liable to such punishment including a fine as the disciplinary
authority may decide.
Section "85. Penalty for Contravention of Provisions of Act: If
any person contravenes any of the provisions relating to payment of
compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement, every such person
shall be liable to a punishment of six months which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both."
Section "87. Offences by Government Departments- (I)
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any
department of the Government, the head of the department, shall

be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render
any person liable to any punishment if such person proves that
the offence was committed without his knowledge or that such
person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1),
where any offence under this Act has been committed by a
Department of the Government and it is proved that the offence
has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer, other than the
head of the department, such officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.
Hence to halt this illegal practice of non passing of R & R
Award and not providing the other entitlements and benefits even in
such cases where there is an apparent displacement of the project
affected families, immediate indulgence of this Hon'ble Court is need
of the hour. No other authority except this writ court is well
competent to stop this practice by passing the strict orders.
25. That there cannot be any dispute that the power of the High
Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature
of Habeas Corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition
under Article 226 of the Constitution is the basic feature of the
Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliament legislature, hence in
the exercise of the powers vested under Article 226, the High Court
can entertain a writ against any order passed by or action taken by the
State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or

quasi/judicial body/authority. Even in cases, where an effective
alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved persons it will not be a
bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of
the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the
principle of natural justice or if the order under challenge is wholly
without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge.
In view of law laid by the Hon'ble Apex court in Hari Krishna
Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 6156 of
2013, D/d. 7.8.2020 (Law finder Doc Id # 1735055),
" 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ
of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to
exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has
failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by
a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has
exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration.
"101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of
Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and
lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public
authority.
104. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain
a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the
petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In
a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues
both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true,
discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial
principles. Reference may be made inter alia to the judgments of this
Court Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Batinda and State of
Kerala v. M.K Jose. In M. K. Jose (supra), this Court held:

11. (1969) 3 SCC 769 12 (2015) 9 SCC 433 "16. Having referred to the
aforesaid decisions, it is obligatory on our part to refer to two other
authorities of this Court where it has been opined that under what
circumstances a disputed question of fact can be gone into. In Ounwant
Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda ((1969) 3 SCC 769) , it has been
held thus. (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) "14. The High Court observed that
they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But
what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be
determined after an affidavit-in-reply was fied by the State. The High
Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High
Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under
Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief
questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article
226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.
Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion
must be exercised on sound judicial principles.
A Constitution Bench of Hon ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar

vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, has held that "the Judges of
the superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the
Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it. It
is they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the
Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive
de not, in the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional
limitations. It is equally their duty to oversee that the judicial decisions
rendered by those who man the subordinate courts and tribunals do not
fall foul of strict standards of legal correctness and judicial
independence. The constitutional safeguards which ensure the
independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary are not available to
the Judges of the subordinate judiciary or to those who man tribunals
created by ordinary legislations Consequently, Judges of the latter

category can never be considered full and effective substitutes for the
superior judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional
interpretation We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over
legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential
feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure."
In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is well-settled that the power of
superintendence conferred on the High Court administrative as well as
judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person
aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount
consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the
High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles
therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on
the High Court by Article 226 in that the power of superintendence is not
subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are
to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the
exercise of power are almost similar.
In Umaji Kesha Meshraram & others v. Radhikabai W/O Anandrao
Banapurkar 8v Ani., 1986 SCR (1) 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the power under Article 227 may be exercised in cases
occasioning, grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (;) the
court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (I)
has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure
occasioning a failure of justice and (ill) the jurisdiction though available
is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping limits
of jurisdiction.
In the present case the competent authority has not only failed to
exercise a jurisdiction which it does have re, to pass the Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Award in view of Second and Third Schedules of the Act
of 2013, such failure is a failure of justice but has also exercised the
jurisdiction in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of
jurisdiction i.e., by arbitrarily changing the nature of land.
A Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Bakul
Debnath Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Lid. (2008) 2 OLR 19, held that the
framers of the Constitution had conferred unfettered powers to every
High Court of the country by way of inserting Articles 226, 227 and 228,
without making then subject to any law to be made by the appropriate
legislature, and had put these Articles beyond the legislative reach of the
Parliament and the State Legislatures with the result that the jurisdiction
conferred by the aforesaid Articles can only be curtailed or executed
with respect to any matter by constitutional amendment and not by other
ordinary legislation and/or in other way whatever may be the mode.
Now, if the aforesaid Articles can be considered as a part of the basic
feature of the Constitution that cannot also be amended even by the
Parliament. The reason behind this is that the framers of the Constitution
considered that the people/citizens of the Nation be armed with certain
powers to seek justice and for that purpose, the Constitution vested the
High Courts with wide power of judicial review under Article 226 and
power of judicial supervision and superintendence under Article 227
which enables the Court to act suo motu in the interest of justice. As the
power is directly derived from the Constitution, which is the basic
source and mother of all laws and statutes in the republic, the power
given to High Court is sacred duty on it so as to enable to administer
justice to the citizen (a) without any compromise. Such power is given to
the people to get proper justice from the High Court in appropriate cases
and duty of the Court is to nullify injustice to protect and provide justice
More so, if a Tribunal while acting even within its jurisdiction makes an
error of law, which it reveals on the face

of its recorded determination, then the Court in exercise of its
supervisory function may correct the error unless there is some provision
in the statute itself preventing by a review by a Court of law.
Moreover it is also pertinent to mention that once it is proved that the
activity undertaken by the authority has a public element then regardless of
the form of such authority it would be subjected to the rigor of writ
jurisdiction of Artiele 226 of the Constitution. The emphasis is always on
activity undertaken and the nature of duty imposed on such authority to
perform and not the form of such authority.
In Dr. Janet Jayapaul Y SRM University and Ors., MR 2016 SC 73,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that -20. The term "authority"
used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike
the term in Article 12. Article 12 in relevant only for the purpose of
enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers
power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the
fundamental rights as well as non- fundamental rights. The words "any
person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined
only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may
cover any other person or body performing public duty The form of the
body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature
of the duty imposed. The duty must be judged in the light of positive
obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No
matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists
mandamus cannot be denied. SLP No. 11208 of 2015"
Thus in view of the above submissions, it is most humbly
submitted that this Hon'ble Court has every kind of competence
and jurisdiction to intervene and redress the grievances of the poor
petitioners who are running from pillar to post to get implement
the mandatory statutory provisions of beneficial legislation but no

r,
respondent authority is paying heed to comply with the same and are
adamant to follow the procedure which they were following under the
colonial legislation, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
26. That the petitioners do not hrve any alternative remedy
available to them because they are before this Hon'ble Court not for
enhancement of the amount of compensation but are challenging the
entire acquisition proceedings in question, as such they can't be
asked to avail the remedy under section 3G(5). The accompanied
writ petition has been preferred in legs: and fair manner with cogent
and legal reason in the absence of any alternative remedy to get enforce
the statutory provisions except instant writ petition under Article 226/
227 of the Constitution of India. It is most humbly submitted that this
Hon ble court only have the jurisdiction, competence, authority and
power to direct the respondents to do the needful and follow the
appropriate course of action as alleged by the petitioners and the
Arbitrator has neither the jurisdiction/capacity/authority to pass the R8s
R Award nor can he direct the competent authority to pays the same
under any of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 or any other legislation. Similarly, 10 any other
court/tribunal/judicial or quasi-judicial authority have the
authority/capacity/jurisdiction to pass such directions. Hence on this
ground alone this writ petition is maintainable
Moreover the application under section 3(G)5 of the National
Highways Act, 1956 cannot be construed as alternative remedy because:
i) Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways, 1956, very
unambiguously provides that if the amount determined by
the competent authority under sub. section (1) or sub-
section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the
amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be

determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central
Government. No entitlements and benefits which the petitioners
are entitled as per second and third schedules of the Act of 2013
has been granted till date so the question of acceptance or non-
acceptance of amount determined by competent authority under
sub section 1 and sub section 2 of 3(G) does not arise at all.
Needless to mention that until and unless something has not been
granted (R & R Award is not passed) at all then no question to
approach the arbitrator for enhancement arises as per the
provisions of law. If the R & R Award so passed by the
competent authority would seem to petitioners on lower side, the
landowners/ petitioners will approach the arbitrator for its
enhancement. If it is not passed at all then no question to
approach the arbitrator arises as per the provisions of law.
ii) In view of section 31(1) of the Act of 2013, the collector/competent
authority is duty bound to pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Award prior to taking the possession and demolishing of structures.
The provisions of section 31(1) are hereby reproduced: "31.
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for affected families by
Collector.-
(1) The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation andResettlement
Awards for cach affected families in terms of the entitlements
provided in the Second Schedule.
XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
iii) Thus it is collector or competent authority that will pass the R & R
Award not Arbitrator. In view of section 3(H)1 National Highways
Act and 38 of Act of 2013, possession of the property subject matter
of acquisition cannot be taken
without making compensation and as well as Rehabilitation and
Resettlement entitlements are paid. Further as per section 38(2) of
the Act of 2013 the collector is duty bound to ensure that the
rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all respects
before displacing the affected families. As per sub section (1) of
section 38 of the Act, it is mandatory that collector shall take
possession of land only after paying full compensation as well as
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered.
Therefore it is the CALA or the collector not the arbitrator who
will finalize the whole process of providing the rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements to the petitioners. As the CALA has
completely failed to do therefore directions are required for the
enforcement of the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that
there is no any such provision under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the National Highways Act, 1956 or the
Act of 2013 empowering the Arbitrator to direct the competent
authority to pass the R & R Award. It is only this Hon'ble Court
having the jurisdiction and competence to issue such directions.
Thus there is no point to avail the remedy u/ s 3-G.
iv) If by disbursing the compensation in view of impugned

award, the respondents would take possession by demolishing
residential houses, shops, workshops and other the structures of
the petitioners then from where and how the respondents would
pass the R & R award. During that time where the petitioners
would reside and earn their livelihood which would not only
amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act of2013 but also
of fundamental right to shelter and livelihood. In view of these
submissions, this
Hon'ble Court being custodian of the Indian Constitution not
the arbitrator U/s 3-G(5) has to protect such constitutional
rights of the petitioners and redress their genuine grievances.
Furthermore, the Award dated 06.07.2021 is void-ab-initio
as it has not been passed in view of First Schedule and the
Manual of Guidelines, 2017 issued by MORTH wherein it is
mandatory for the competent authority to calculate the
compensation for land by following the prescribed set
pattern only and it is specifically mentioned that the method
to calculate the total amount of compensation is to be
followed step-wise. But the competent authority has not
followed the same.
Secondly, the respondent competent authority has passed the
above said impugned Award by ignoring the real and
recorded nature of the land in question. Moreover one
combined award for the land of all the petitioners against the
mandate of section 30(2) of the Act of 2013 which
prescribes that the collector shall issue individual awards.
Similarly there are number of other illegalities as mentioned
in the preceding para Thus in view of all such illegalities
particularly Award contemplated under First Schedule (read
with section 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013) is passed in
apparent contradiction to the latter and spirit of the said
provisions of the Act then only this Hon'ble Court not the
arbitrator can issue directions to the competent authority to
pass the Award afresh. The arbitrator can only adjudicate
upon the excess or inadequacy of the amount granted by the
competent authority.
v) It is not the only and first case wherein the respondents have
failed to pass the rehabilitation and resettlement award rather
it is the usual practice of the competent authorities (in
connivance with the respondent NHAI) all over the state of
Punjab that only Award for land sometimes for structures is
passed and no heed is paid to pass R & R Award. When
violation of provisions of a central beneficial legislation is
prevalent on a mass level then no other forum than this
Hon'ble court has the prerogative to mend the same and
ensure its complete compliance.
Furthermore, it is a well settled proposition of law enunciated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even in cases, where an
effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
persons it will not be a bar to the entertaining of writ petition
filed:
i. For the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights
or
ii. where there has been a violation of the principle of
natural justice or
iii in. where the order under challenge is wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under
challenge.
In the case of Miss Maneck Custodi Surjari Vs. Sarafazali Nawabali
Mirza, AIR 1976 SC 2446, the Apex Court held that the well-settled
principle that the High Court does not ordinarily, in exercise of its
discretion, entertain a special civil application under Art. 227 of the
Constitution where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the
applicant, is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary

circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the
High Court may interfere in favor of an applicant.
Recently in Balkrishna Ram v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 2020
SC 341, the Supreme Court of India has held that even when alternative
remedy is available, High court can exercise Writ jurisdiction. The
principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction when an elicacious alternative remedy is available, is a rule
of prudence and not a rule of law. The writ courts normally refrain from
exercising their extraordinary power if the petitioner has an alternative
efficacious remedy. The existence of such remedy however does not
mean that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted.
In State of U.P, and others v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. AIR 1977
SC 1132, the Hon'ble Court has held that there is no rule of law that the
High Court should not entertain a writ petition where an alternative
remedy is available to a party. It is always a matter of discretion with the
Court.
In Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India 86 Ors.,
2019(10) Scale 67, the Hon 'ble Apex court has held that the mere
existence of alterative forums where the aggrieved party may secure
relief does not create a legal bar on a High court to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High
court amongst several factors.
It is most humbly submitted that it is the best case to intervene
wherein there is not only an apparent violation of the legal and
constitutional rights of the petitioners but the principles of natural
justice as well.
27. That the whole relief of the petitioners claimed in this writ
petition is grounded on the philosophy, introduction and statement of objects
and reasons of this Act, relevant part of which is as follows:
i) There was no central law to adequately deal with the issues of
rehabilitation and resettlements of displaced persons. As land
acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlements were

41
two sides of the same coin, a single integrated law to deal with
the issues of land acquisition and rehabilitation and
resettlements was necessary. Hence the proposed legislation
(The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlements Act, 2013)
proposes to address the concerns of farmers and those whose
livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired.
ii) There is an imperative need to recognize rehabilitation and
resettlements issues as intrinsic to the development process
formulated with the active participation of affected persons and
families. The plight of those who do not have rights over the
land on which they are critically dependent for their subsistence
is even worse.
iii) To ensure comprehensive compensation package for the
land owners a scientific method for calculation of the market
value of the land has been proposed. Market value
calculated will be multiplied by a factor of two in rural
areas. Solatium will also be increased upto 100 percent of
the total compensation.
iv) Comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement package for
land owners including subsistence allowance, jobs, house,
transportation allowance and resettlement allowance
proposed.
v) Twenty-five infrastructural amenities are proposed to be
provided in the resettlement area including schools and play
grounds, health centers, roads and electric connections,
assured sources of safe drinking water, Panchayat Ghars,
Anganwadis, places of worship, burial and cremation
grounds, village level post onices, fair price shops and seed-
cum-fertilizers storage facilities.
vi) Stringent and comprehensive penalties both for companies
and Government in cases of false information, mala fide
action and contravention of the provisions of the proposed
legislation have been provided.
28. That it is pertinent to mention here that the agricultural land of
villages Dhanas and Daddumajra stood acquired for construction of PR-4
road in 2018-19 in which the LAC, UT Chandigarh has passed a detailed
R 86 R award even though no structure or super structure was existing on
the land subject matter of such acquisition. The UT Administration has
pronounced Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award following the
procedure prescribed under the Act of 2013 and as such granted
compensation @Rs. S lacs as choice of annuity or onetime payment and
further, Rs. 50,000/- as one time re-settlement even the agricultural land
was acquired but the instant case is much more better than the same
where residential houses of the petitioners have been acquired. Therefore
the petitioners/landowners are claiming parity to the landowners of those
villages. Copy of R 86 R is annexed herewith as Annexure P-38.
29. That the following questions of law arise for determination by
this Hon'ble Court:
i. Whether the act and conduct of respondents MORTFI, Govt. of
India and NHAl initiating the acquisition proceedings

without framing any Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme/Policy for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the
displaced and affected petitioners and their families, is
lawful?
ii. Whether the act and conduct of respondents MORTH, Govt.
of India and NHAl initiating the acquisition proceedings
without publishing any Social Impact Assessment Report
ascertaining the impacts of the project in question, is lawful?
iii. Whether the act and conduct of the respondent MORTH, Govt.
of India and NHAI, not framing the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement policy/ Scheme and Social Impact Assessment
Report on the lines of RPF and SI Report prepared for similar
situated persons affected in the other projects undertaken by
the respondent NHAI, amounts to discrimination and
infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and
their families enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India?
iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get all the benefits and
entitlement provided to the above stated similar situated
persons on the basis of parity?
v. Whether the act and conduct of competent authority/
collector initiating the acquisition proceedings without
updating and revising the market value of the land on the
basis of prevalent market rate in that area (as
contemplated in second last proviso to section 26 of the
Act of 2013), is justifiable?
vi. Whether the act and conduct of respondent competent
authority passing the Award for land and structures in
installments in contravention to the set formula prescribed

by First Schedule of the Act of 2013 and the Manual of
Guidelines, 2017, is lawful?
vii. Whether the competent authority has jurisdiction to
determine and grant agricultural rates for the residential
houses and other structures of the petitioners?
viii. Whether the competent authority has failed determine the
market value of land strictly as per provisions of section 26 of
the Act of 2013 and the collector rates sale deeds of similar
type of residential, Gair-mumkin, commercial land situated in
the nearest village and vicinity?
ix. Whether Competent authority has jurisdiction/competence to
record a finding like civil court that the residential structures
constructed on and surrounded by agricultural land is an
agricultural property?
x. Whether competent authority has jurisdiction to ascertain
the potential of land as agricultural despite of the existing
residential house, shops, trees and other structures
supported by revenue record?
xi. Whether the competent authority has any jurisdiction to
record a finding that particular land has no commercial
potential?
xii. Whether the act and conduct of respondents for not
considering and deciding the objections/claims filed by the
petitioners 4/s 3 C (1) 85 3 D of the Act of 1956 by passing
speaking order leads to quashing of the entire acquisition
proceedings in question?
xiii. Whether act and conduct of respondent competent authority for
not passing rehabilitation and resettlement Award does not
amount to an apparent violation of the provisions of

section 31, 38 and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013, the
Notification dated 28.08.2015 and Letter dated 11.09.2015?
xiv. Whether the act and conduct of respondent competent

authority of not making provision of basic amenities in the
resettled area does not amount to an apparent violation of the
provisions of section 32, 38 and Third Schedule of the Act of
2013?
xv. Whether the respondents have any authority to take
possession of land without determining and disbursing
compensation for land and structures in view of First
Schedule to the Act of 2013 and granting rehabilitation,
resettlement entitlements in violation to section 31, 32, 38
and Second Schedule of the Act of 2013 and section 3(H)1,
3H(2) of Act of 1956 and Circulars, Letters, Notifications,
Memos and Corrigendum issued in this regard?
xvi. Whether the act and conduct of the respondents not providing
the constructed houses and other structures in lieu of the
acquired houses and structures of the petitioners in
contravention to the provisions of the Act of 2013, is
infringement of the fundamental right to shelter of the
petitioners and their families enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India?
xvii. Whether the respondent NHAI has any jurisdiction or
competence to demolish the residential houses and other
structures of the petitioners without compliance with First,
Second and Third schedules of the Act of 2013?
xviii. Whether the respondents are bound by the
provisions/conditions incorporated in RPF and SIA
conducted for NH -707 and other projects ie., possession of
land subject matter of acquisition cannot be taken without

passing R 86 R Award and entitlements, in the case of this
acquisition also?
xix. Whether the act and conduct of the respondents acquiring the
land and properties of the petitioners without following the
due procedure of law infringement of the Constitutional
right to property of the petitioners and their families
enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India?
xx. Whether acts of the respondents are in violation to the principles
of Natural Justice?
xxi. Whether acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are in
violation to the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National
Highways Rules, 1957?
xxii. Whether acts and conduct of the respondent authorities are in
violation to section 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 105(3) of the
Right to Pair Compensation and Transparency Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?
xxiii. Whether the respondent authorities had acted in violation to
the intention of fair compensation, rehabilitation,
resettlement policy as framed by the Union of India and
specifically made applicable to National Highway Land
acquisition cases?
xxiv. Whether the act and conduct of respondents for not passing
rehabilitation and resettlement award is justifiable?
xxv. Whether issuance of 3-A & 3-) notification by changing
the recorded nature of land leads to quashing all the
acquisition proceedings in question?
xxvi. Whether the Act and conduct of respondents of taking steps
to take possession of property without following the due
course of law can stand the test of relevant statutes and
principles of natural justice?

30. That present writ petition has been preferred as a last resort
(after exhausting all the statutory remedies) to raise the genuine
concerns of petitioners who are suffering a lot due to the unlawful
conduct of respondents. All the contentions raised against the
respondents are supported with the documentary evidence and relevant
statutory provisions. That the objections filed u/s 3 C(1)of the Act of
1956 has been rejected in one line without passing any speaking order or
by application of mind. No opportunity of hearing has been granted to
the petitioners to hear their grievances/objections while finalizing this
compulsory acquisition process. Rather the employees of respondent
NHAI have come to demolish the residential houses and other structures
of the petitioners without providing them their lawful entitlements and
benefits. The petitioners immediately approached the office of
competent authority highlighting the said act and conduct of employees
but no action for the same as been taken so far.
31. That the respondents especially Competent authority has
neither pronounced the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award nor has
taken a single step to make a provision for basic amenities in view of
second and third schedule of the Act of 2013 due to reason well known to
them and now the respondent competent authority has passed one another
award only for structure and superstructures by calculating cost of bricks,
cement, iron, Linton, sand, gravel etc. instead of passing Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Award along with it. This is a traditional practice
(under the provisions of old Land Acquisition Act prevailing prior to
2013) followed by the competent authority in all the cases of acquisition
by the NHAI. The competent authority even after the passing of Act of
2013 is still in a continuous practice of assessing the compensation in
view of such Colonial legislation. Thus it is a best case for immediate
indulgence of this Hon'ble Court so that directions can be passed to the
respondents including the competent authority to pass the

Award for land afresh by including the value of these assets, pass the R
85 R Award, make provision for in -rastructural amenities in the
resettlement area, prepare a Development plan in addition to that so that
interests of the poor petitioners belonging to Scheduled caste and
backward class families, can be saved. if this has not been done, it will
lead to multiplicity of litigation.
32. That it is again submitted ':hat the petitioners are before
this Hon'ble court not for the enInncement of the amount of
compensation rather have approache :1 to highlight the illegalities
committed by the respondent NHAI '7. n d the competent authority
who despite of such clear mandate of ':he Central Govt. Notification
dated 28.08.2015, Letter dated 11.0c;.2015, the Act of 2013, the
guidelines, notifications, letters, corrigendum issued by the govt. in
this behalf and several requests in tr.e form of objections/claims
made by the petitioners, are not wilt' to pass the rehabilitation and
resettlement award and make p: 31.Tisions for basic amenities
thereof.
33. That it is a well settled proposition of law that where land has
been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent
authority is bound to Pronounce Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award,
Entitlements for all the affected families (both landowners and the
families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land acquired) in
addition to those provided in the Is schedule, in view of section 31, 38(1)
and 105(3) and 2nd schedule of Act of 2013 and to make provisions of
Infrastructural Amenities as per section 32, 38(1) and 105(3) and 3rd
schedule of the Act of 2013. The following are the some judgments
passed Hon'ble High Courts, whereby competent authority directed has
been directed determine compensation pass the R 86 R

CWP - pAPER - BOOK - Old

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CWP - pAPER - BOOK - Old

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CWP No. of 2022

Mithoo Devi and others ... Petitioners

Union of India and others ... Respondents

Sr. Document Dated Page Court

P-1 : (Copy of notification 05.02.2019 90-91 3.00

P-2 : (Copy of notification 10.01.2020 92-94 3.00

P-3 : (Photograph) 95 1.00

P-4 : (Photograph) 96 1.00

P-14 : (Copy of electricity bill 109-110 2.00

P-17 : (Copy of survey plan of 115 1.00

P-18 : (Copy of notification) 04.10.2013 116-118 3.00

P-19 : (Copy of notification 28.08.2015 119-121 3.00

P-22 : (Copy of objection to 3D 137-145 6.00

P-23 : (Copy of objection to 3D 146-154 6.00

P-24 : (Copy of objection to 3D 155-163 6.00

P-32 : (Copy of Letter) 11.09.2015 202-203 2.00

P-34 : (Copy of Resettlement April 2021 208-300 61.00

P-36 : (Copy of public notice u/s 23.02.2021 383-395 9.00

P-2 : (Copy of notification 10.01.2020 436-438

P-11 : (Copy of electricity bill 439-441

P-12 : (Copy of electricity bill 442-444

P- 13 : (Copy of electricity bill 445

P-14 : (Copy of electricity bill 446-447

P-15 : (Copy of electricity bill 448-450

P-16 : (Copy of electricity bill 451-452

P-37 : (Copy of application) 11.10.2021 453-454

Total Court Fee : Rs.635.00

Narendra Negi <negi.narendra76@gmail.com> Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:04 AM

and ors v s union of India and ors.pdf

Mithoo Devi and others ... Petitioners

Union of India and others ... Respondents

TOTAL COURT FEE: Rs. 635.00

Place: Chandigarh Date: (A IT IN)

11/41171-too eDE-v1 A-N5D Nei

Ur` - ' \ " ) Or - kii2)4 AND oteS

0,1,0, 4 4. ..9. !.4.4.:4

itEt Trafal7) CHANDIGARH (U.T.) 129036

I N 711 F e-P 0 Na-7-66 61`"B 14"- 1'1 64•1xi r C/ C-1 C 00)(T- Cm

"-De-V1. ea-tJ CA)

UNI" k)Dt 19 A-fol) pe) )eFefeateP&A/

Colm,SE-z_ Fog_ (PFTTholvet_

List of Dates and Events

Petitioners are law abiding citizens of India and

permanent residents of Gurugram,. State of Haryana

and Respondents are departments/instrumentalities of

the Union of India and the State of Haryana.

85 10.01.2020 The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,

of India has acquired the residential property owned

and possessed by petitioners situated at Saraswati

Enclave Colony, Kadipur, Gurugram which falls

within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gurugram

for purpose of building (widening/four laning etc.),

maintenance, management and operation of NH-352W

(Gurugrarn-Pataudi-Rewari Road) on stretch of land

from Km 0 to K.M. 45 (Mini Secretariat, Gurugram)

in the Village Kadipur, Tehsil Kadipur, District

Gurugram and copy of notification bearing S.O. No.

151(E) dated 10.01.2020 issued under section 3 D (1)

of the Act of 1956.

The land/property of petitioners subject matter of

acquisition is shown to be comprised in khasra no.

32/ /7min(2-10) and their residential houses,