Court Can't Decide On Need For Constructing New Highways, Purely Policy Decision: J&K&L High Court

The petition was dismissed by a division bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi and Justice Pankaj Mithal observing:

"The submission that there is no need for constructing a new national highway as there already exists a highway which can be repaired and widened, it may be pertinent to mention that the construction of a national highway is a policy decision, which is taken on the opinion of the experts. It is not for this Court to intervene in such matters on the simple saying of the petitioners that such road or a highway is not needed."

The petitioner had moved High Court seeking direction upon the respondent government authorities to widen the already existing National Highway instead of constructing a new road and that too in violation of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act 2013.

Admittedly the petitioner had not filed any notification under which the aforesaid land has been acquired.

The objections filed by the respondents categorically stated that since the land was needed for the public purpose of construction of the national highway, it was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956. One of the petitioners i.e., petitioner No. 1 has even accepted the compensation as per the award declared.

The petitioners had not filed any rejoinder affidavit to rebut the contentions made in the objections of the respondents.

The Court also noted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the absence of any challenge of the acquisition proceedings either under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act 2013 or the National Highway Act.

"The submission of the counsel for the petitioners' that in the garb of the aforesaid acquisition, respondents are encroaching upon their land which has not been acquired. This submission cannot be accepted as this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is not competent enough to decide the matter regarding encroachment of any land. The petitioners may take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy in this regard as may be advised to them in law." Court said

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, court didn't find any merit in the petition and dismissed it.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar and others v/s Union Territory of J and K and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 21