• The petitioners, landowners of the "Shantiniketan" building, claimed their property was acquired and demolished by NHAI without following due process during the NH-4 expansion.
• Filed writ petition seeking compensation for the demolished structure, claiming they were rendered homeless.

Para 3-4: Ownership and Initial Demolition

• Shantiniketan, a four-story building, has been in existence since 1973-74, expanded in 1988-89.
• Petitioners filed in 2020 after the building was partially demolished in 2016, claiming no compensation was paid.

Para 5-6: Acquisition Process and Petitioners' Claims

• A notice under the National Highways Act was issued in 2003, and an award passed in 2004 for NH-4 widening.
• Petitioners allege they filed objections and the acquisition was curtailed to 30 meters, but Shantiniketan was not included in this curtailment.

Para 7-8: Confusion Over Acquisition and Civil Suit

• A fresh notice under Section 3D of the National Highways Act was issued in 2015, leading to confusion over which authority was responsible for acquisition.
• The petitioners filed a civil suit in 2015, but it was dismissed in default.

Para 9: NHAI's Stand on Encroachment

• NHAI claimed the petitioners had encroached on the acquired land and demolished unauthorized structures in 2016.
• NHAI argued the land acquisition for Gat No. 336 was completed in 2004.

Para 10-11: Court's Observations on Acquisition and Claims

• The court observed that the 2004 award covered Gat No. 336, and Sudhir Automobiles (another property) was explicitly mentioned.
• The court found inconsistencies in the petitioners' claim about Shantiniketan's demolition and existence.

Para 12-13: Lack of Pursuit and Contradictory Claims

• The court noted that petitioners did not pursue their civil suit and approached the writ court after four years, making the facts ambiguous.
• The petitioners’ claims about a new acquisition in 2016 were unsubstantiated, as the 2016 action was an encroachment clearance.

Para 14-15: Contradictions in Petitioners' Interim Application

• Petitioners' claim of complete demolition in 2016 contradicted their request for an injunction against further demolition in 2022.
• A valuation report was submitted showing a value of Rs. 98,14,424/- but with contradictions on the building's use.

Para 16: Court's Conclusion on Merits

• The court found the petitioners' factual assertions unconvincing and contradictory. The delayed writ filing and failure to pursue the civil suit weakened their case.

Para 17: Final Order

• The court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule, concluding that no judicial intervention was warranted.

Acts and Sections Discussed

• National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3D (Acquisition of Land)
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue writs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that petitioners failed to establish a clear case for compensation, given their delay in seeking relief, failure to pursue alternate legal remedies (civil suit), and inconsistent factual claims regarding the demolition and acquisition process. Judicial intervention under Article 226 was not justified due to the ambiguous and contradictory facts.

Subjects:

Writ petition challenging demolition and seeking compensation for property allegedly acquired under the National Highways Act.