UKHC010172462018 2026:UHC:6490 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/3227/2018 Jeetpal Singh --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. No representation for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent. 2. In this writ petition filed in 2018, petitioner has challenged notification dated 27.01.2017 issued by Central Government under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 by Mr. Saurabh Singh, Executive Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Dehradun. Para 7 and 8 of the said counter affidavit are extracted below: “7- That with regards to paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that in the instant case of widening of road, centre line is shifted for the purposes of improvement of geometrics of the NH UKHC010172462018 2026:UHC:6490 as per Indian Road Congress codal provisions for vertical and horizontal alignment standards. 8- That the contents of paragraph no. 12 to 15 of the Writ Petition need no comments as the matter is related to CALA. However, it is submitted that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had published the 3 (D) Notification which was prepared and submitted by the CALA after considering and settling all the objections received under section 3 (C) of the National Highways Act, 1956.” 4. In para 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it is stated that petitioner has not submitted any documents/proof regarding the ownership of the land/building in which petitioner is living and running his business. 5. Since the land in question was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose i.e. construction of national highway, therefore in the absence of any valid ground, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notification. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.07.2026 Mahinder