The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is the best judge to determine which land would be suitable for the construction of the highways, according to the Allahabad High Court. No project can be stopped at the request of one individual who believes that his land is unimportant for the widening of the National Highway. When addressing a writ suit brought by the petitioners Shyam Singh and Others asking that their land not be taken for the building of the National Highway, the court made a statement.
In the instant case titled Shyam Singh and Anr v. State of U.P., the issue raised before the Allahabad High Court was:
Whether the writ of Mandamus can be issued and the land should not be acquired for the construction of the National Highway?
With regard to the issue, the court stated that the petitioners were requested to transfer physical possession of the land in favor of the Central Government, according to the notification dated 23.05.2022, and to appear in person at the office of the responsible authority on that date to obtain compensation and the necessary documentation.
With the publication of the award and the taking of possession of the land in 2020, the record thus indicates that the acquisition of the subject land has been completed. The petitioners have not objected to any of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners needed to abide by the notice sent to them in order to seek compensation.
The court categorically stated that:
“The contention in the writ petition is that Gata No.1 belonging to the petitioners has no importance to the existing Highway is totally misconceived, inasmuch as, no malafide has been pleaded by the petitioners and the National Highway Authority is the best judge to decide which land would be suitable for the construction of the Highways. No project can be stopped at the behest of one person who thinks that his land is not important for the widening of the National Highway. Having noticed, the above, we do not find any merit in the prayer made in the writ petition.”
Hence, the court dismissed the writ petition but the petitioners were at liberty to receive compensation from the competent authority by producing their document of right, title, and ownership of the land in question.