An association cannot maintain a writ challenging acquisition of its members’ individual lands.

The petition was filed by the Gandhinagar Farmers Association, claiming to represent farmers of Valad and Limbadiya villages, Gandhinagar, whose lands had allegedly been acquired for development of GIFT City, the Narmada Canal, and road projects.

The petition challenged the award dated 29 February 2016 and the notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, concerning acquisition for a four-lane road connecting the proposed 80-metre ring road with the Naroda-Sardar Patel Ring Road.

The petitioners alleged that objections filed by some members had not been considered and that they had not been granted a hearing.

The acquisition process covered lands in 88 villages, and notifications under Sections 3A and 3D had already been issued.

During the proceedings, it was admitted that the road had already been constructed and the project completed; no interim order had been granted.

Whether a farmers’ association could maintain a writ petition challenging the acquisition of specific parcels or groups of private lands when the statutory right to object under Section 3C of the National Highways Act belonged to individual persons interested in the land.

Whether the petition was maintainable when it challenged the Section 3A notification and award through vague pleadings, without identifying specific acquisition notifications or lands, and without challenging the Section 3D declaration.

Whether relief could be granted against an acquisition after the proceedings had culminated in an award and the public road project had already been completed.

The Court applied Sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Section 3A concerns the preliminary notification proposing acquisition of land for a national highway, while Section 3D concerns the declaration resulting in acquisition; Section 3C grants a person interested in the land the statutory right to file objections, which must be considered by the competent authority.

The Court held that a challenge to the acquisition of an individual parcel or group of private lands must ordinarily be brought by the affected individual landowners, particularly where the alleged grievance concerns rejection or non-consideration of their individual objections; an association cannot assert such individual rights without sufficient legal standing or specific pleadings.

A writ petition seeking quashing of acquisition must also identify the relevant notification and affected land with precision and cannot rest on vague assertions.

The Court found that the petition did not identify any particular acquisition notification or specific parcels of land and instead sought broad relief against acquisition in Valad and Limbadiya villages.

Since the objections under Section 3C were individual statutory rights, any challenge based on their non-consideration or rejection had to be pursued by the concerned landowners rather than collectively by the association.

The Court further noted that the petition challenged only the Section 3A notification and the award, while not seeking to quash the Section 3D declaration relating to the acquisition of lands in 88 villages.

The award dated 29 February 2016 demonstrated that the acquisition proceedings had progressed to their conclusion before the petition was filed.

In addition, the completed construction of the road made the requested restraint and quashing relief untenable in the circumstances.

The Special Civil Application was therefore dismissed as misconceived, with no order as to costs.

The connected Civil Application for Orders was disposed of as having become infructuous.