In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India directed the Government of Rajasthan to maintain the status quo regarding the reconstruction, widening, and development of the Manglana-Makrana-Borawar (SH-2B) and Makrana-Bidiyad-Parbatsar (SH-2D) state highways.

The matter was heard before the division bench, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

The case arises from a dispute concerning land acquisition for these highway projects. The Rajasthan government had issued notifications and served notices to affected landowners, including the petitioner, Hanuman Prasad.

Despite objections raised under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land acquisition process proceeded without a conclusive decision from the competent authority, as mandated by the Act.

In response to the notices, the petitioner filed objections with the Land Acquisition Officer. However, with these objections unresolved, another notice was served, prompting the petitioner to seek redress from the Rajasthan High Court.

Initially, a single-judge bench of the High Court ordered the government to maintain the status quo. However, this order was overturned by the High Court's Division Bench on November 27, 2024, allowing the highway development to proceed while directing that any construction or removal activities be documented through videography.

“This court is of the opinion that even if the argument raised by the respondents regarding the SDO's competence is accepted, there is no document or decision available on record to show that the objections were decided,” the High Court remarked.

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv H.D. Thanvi and Nikhil Kumar Singh, escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the submissions and material on record, the Apex Court issued an order staying the division bench's ruling.

Additionally, it directed the Rajasthan government to maintain the status quo until further notice and issued a formal notice to the state for its response.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between infrastructure development and land acquisition rights, with the judiciary playing a crucial role in balancing public interest and individual rights. The matter remains pending for further hearing.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 029222 - / 2024