Rajasthan High Court stays road widening demolitions, mandates ‘10 trees per cut’

The court stressed that the planting trees and plants initiative is appropriate, as thriving trees, whether for decades or centuries, provide continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community. “Future generations will enjoy a cleaner, fresher, and oxygen-rich environment as a result of that.”

The court also directed the authorities to constitute a committee of senior departmental officials within 15 days to examine the claims of the petitioners whose properties were affected by the proposed road construction.

“Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law,” it held.

Residents challenged road widening

The dispute arose after the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Sri Ganganagar, began proceedings to remove alleged encroachments from land earmarked as an 80-feet-wide public road under the city’s 1981–2001 Master Plan. The authorities issued notices to the occupants, saying that the land belonged to the UIT and that the petitioners had no valid title, particularly because agreements to sell did not confer ownership rights.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand pronounced the judgement on August 19.

The petitioners, however, alleged that their objections were not properly considered before eviction notices were issued. They maintained that if their properties were genuinely required for the road project, they should first be given a hearing and paid appropriate compensation.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocates Manoj Bhandari with advocates Shreyansh Bhandari and Saloni Jain submitted that the petitioners were in lawful possession of the properties based on agreements to sell and other documents and argued that the authorities could not dispossess them without following due process of law and paying compensation.

The court stated that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 has been enacted with an object to promote and facilitate the improvement and expansion of the Urban areas in the State of Rajasthan. It added that the Act empowers UITs and other local bodies to prepare Master Plans for urban areas, as they are responsible for future development and expansion.

Master plan must serve public interest: Order

The court observed that the Master Plan must be implemented in the larger public interest and that authorities cannot disregard it arbitrarily. The road was planned as an 80-feet-wide road to address traffic congestion and facilitate planned development of Sri Ganganagar.

At the same time, the court held that no person can be forcibly dispossessed of property without following due process of law. Before taking adverse action, authorities must provide proper notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

The ruling noted that it appears that the petitioners submitted their objections before the respondents, but the same were not considered and, straightaway, notices for their eviction from the subject land were issued.

“It is a settled proposition of law that before taking any action against any individual or establishment, due process of law is required to be followed. Due process of law means that proper notice and due opportunity of being heard must be provided to the affected parties before any adverse action is taken against them,” the order highlighted.