ALI SHER v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
WPMS/2375/2025 · 2025-11-03
Pankaj Purohit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15204 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15204 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
p
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.2375 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking a direction to the learned District Judge, Haridwar to decide and conclude the proceedings of Miscellaneous Case No.63 of 2023, Shubham Walia vs. Rajkumar and others within stipulated time.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s land along with others was acquired by the respondent no.1-National Highway Authority of India (“NHAI”). The award was made and the respondent no.1-NHAI was directed to make the payment of the amount to the petitioner and other land owners. In between, some dispute arose in respect of the apportionment of the award between the parties, resulting into filing of an application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in the court of District Judge, Haridwar which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.63 of 2023, Shubham Walia vs. Rajkumar and others.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is being adjourned for one reason and the other for the last two years while the matter is extremely urgent and the petitioner are entitled to get the speedy justice in accordance with the Constitution of India which provides that the speedy
2 justice is a fundamental right of a citizen of this country.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent no.1-NHAI and perused the record of the case.
7. From perusal of the order-sheet, it transpires that still all the respondents have not put in appearance in the matter and their objections are yet not on record.
8. In such view of the matter, no case is made out at this stage for any direction for expeditious disposal of the Miscellaneous Case No.63 of 2023, Shubham Walia vs. Rajkumar and others. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move this Court only when the pleadings between the parties are exchanged.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.11.2025 Ravi