Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seelam Praveen Kumar vs The National Highways Authority Of ... on 10 April, 2025
1
APHC010565812023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328]
THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 29343 OF 2023
Between:
1. SEELAM PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. LATE S. VENKATESWARLU,
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.9-3-1/ 1, NEAR
BPCL PETROL BUNK, MYDUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHCNNAMPALLI
VILLAGE, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516 227.
2. SEELA LAKSHMI,, W/O. SEELAM PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGE 31
YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/ O. D.NO.9-3-1/1, NEAR BPCL
PETROL BUNK, MYDUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHENNAMPALLI
VILLAGE, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516 227.
3. SEELA PADMAVATHI,, W/O. LATE S. VENKATESWARLU, AGE 58
YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.9-3-1/ 1, NEAR BPCL
PETROL BUNK, MYDUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHENNAMPALLI
VILLAGE, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516 227.
4. SEELA LOKESH,, S/O. LATE S. VCNKATESWARLU, AGE 31
YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.9-3-1/ 1, NEAR BPCL
PETROL BUNK, MYDUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHENNAMPALLI
VILLAGE, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516 227.
5. THULASI NAGARAJU,, S/O. LATE PEDDA SUBBARAYUDU, AGE
45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.11-1-42, MAIN BAZAR,
PORUMAMILLA ROAD, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR
2
KADAPA DISTRICT-516 227.
6. THULASI LALITHA,, W/O. THULASI NAGARAJU, AGE 40 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.11-1-42, MAIN BAZAR,
PORUMAMILLA ROAD, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT-516 227.
7. VOOTLA NARASAMMA,, W/O. V. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE 55
YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.25-192, SANJEEV NAGAR,
NANDYAL TOWN, NADYAL DISTRICT-518501.
8. V. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, , S/O. LATE NARAYANA, AGE 60 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NC.25-192, SANJEEV NAGAR, NANDYAL
TOWN, NADYAL DISTRICT-518501
9. THANGI SREERAMA SHARMA,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE
71 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.2-2-18, AMMAVARI SHALA
STREET, BADVEL MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516 227.
10. RALLAPATI PEERAMMA, , W/O. PEERAIAH, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC.
CULTIVATION, R/O. THOTTIGARIPALLI VILLAGE, BADVEL
MUNICIPALITY, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516 227.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-5/G-6,
SECTOR 10, DWARAKA NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
2. THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRNASPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, , NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA AND JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
5. THE REVENUE DIVISINAL OFFICER, BADVEL REVENUE DIVISION,
YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
6. THE TAHSILDAR, BADVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT
3
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G VENKATA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
3. .
The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI and Sri Arjun Chowdary, learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The relief sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities especially the 4th respondent in widening the road from two lane to four lane by acquiring only one side of the lands situated towards northern side of the existing two lane road situated at Survey Nos.1689, 1689/2, 1667, 1668, 1661, 1662, 1680, 1683/2, 233 & 234 by leaving the other side lands situated towards southern side of the existing two lane road from Design KM 621.500 to 622.600 of NH67 (1.1) KM situated within the limits of Chennampalli Village Badvel Municipality and Mandal of YSR Kadapa District without even considering objections, dated 15- 09-2021 submitted by the petitioners, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take up the aforesaid road widening work of NH-67 two sides equally from Design KM 621.500 to 622.600 of NH67 (1.1) KM and pass such order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
3. The facts, as projected by the Writ Petitioners are that the Writ Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of 4 agricultural land in Survey Nos.1689, 1689/2, 1667, 1668, 1661, 1662, 1680, 1683/2, 233 & 234. The details are as under:
Writ Petitioner Survey Nos. Extents
No.
(i) 1689 & 1689/2 Ac.0.11 cents
(ii) 1689 & 1689/2 Ac.0.32 cents
(iii) & (iv) 1689 & 1689/2 Ac.0.08 cents (jointly)
(v) 1667 Ac.0.34 cents
1668 Ac.0.08 cents
(vi) 1667 Ac.0.17 cents
1668 Ac.0.12 cents
(vii) 1680 Ac.0.26 cents
1683/2 Ac.0.30 cents
1661 Ac.0.65 cents
1662 Ac.0.25 cents
(viii) 1661 Ac.0.14 cents
1662 Ac.0.07 cents
(ix) 233 Ac.0.36 cents
234 Ac.0.36 cents
(x) 1667 Ac.0.42 cents
1668 Ac.0.01 ½ cents
(All the Survey numbers are situated within the limits of Chennampalli Village, Badvel Muncipality and Mandal of YSR Kadapa District.)
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) (Respondent No.1) has taken up road widening project/work, in respect of NH-67, from the existing two lanes to be widened as four lanes; accordingly, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Respondent No.2) has issued a Gazette Notification on 06.07.2018, whereunder, the Government of India has appointed the Joint Collector (LA), YSR Kadapa District (Respondent No.4) as the Competent Authority for acquisition of lands required for widening of NH-67; 5 consequently, the Joint Collector (LA), YSR Kadapa District (Respondent No.4) has issued Gazette Notification vide SO.No.1937, dated: 19.05.2021 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the Act, 1956) for acquisition of about 262.03 hectors for the purpose of this project; that the Respondent No.4 has invited for objections from the affected parties; that in response to such Notification, the Writ Petitioners herein have submitted their objections on 15.09.2021 (Ex.P.3); and that the main objection raised by the Writ Petitioners herein is that only in respect of the lands belonging to the Writ Petitioners that the acquisition took place only on one side of the existing road instead of acquiring equally on both sides, as a consequence of which, the Writ Petitioners are loosing major chunk of their agricultural land and a house.
5. It is also stated in the objections that except the present lands, the Writ Petitioners do not hold any other lands; that in response to the objections dated: 15.09.2021 (Ex.P.3) the Respondent No.4 has addressed a Letter to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kadapa (Respondent No.3) requesting him to examine the objections submitted by the Writ Petitioners herein and submit a Report; and that, it is further submitted that though the widening work had commenced and is going on at rapid pace in respect of the rest of the national highway, the Respondent No.3 has not submitted any Report, insofar as the objections raised by the Writ Petitioners herein are concerned.
6. It is further submitted that having been aggrieved due to the non- response by the Authorities, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court 6 by filing W.P.No. 26670 of 2021; and that vide Order dated: 17.11.2021 (Ex.P.6), this Court was pleased to dispose of the same with directions, which are extracted herein below:
"4. In view of the difficulties expressed by the petitioners and taking into consideration the nature of controversy and the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.4-competent authority to consider the objections dated 22.09.2021 said to have been submitted by the petitioners in response to the notification dated 09.05.2021, issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, and pass appropriate orders by duly complying with the provisions of Section 3C of the Act."
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition."
7. It is further submitted by the Writ Petitioners that in response to the directions of this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.No.26670 of 2021 (Ex.P.6), the Respondent No.4 has issued Notice on 08.12.2021 (Ex.P.5) under Section 3C of the Act, directing the Writ Petitioners to appear before the Respondent No.4 on 29.12.2021 with relevant documentary evidence in support of the objections filed by the Writ Petitioners herein; that in response to the said Notice dated: 08.12.2021 (Ex.P.5), the Writ Petitioners herein appeared before the Respondent No.4 and explained the objections of the Writ Petitioners; that the Respondent No.4 had informed to the Writ Petitioners that they would consider the objections and inform their response to the Writ Petitioners; that since there is no response from the side of the Official Respondents herein from the said date, i.e., from 29.12.2021, the Writ 7 Petitioners herein were constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant Writ Petition.
8. While issuing Notice to the Respondents, this Court (my Predecessor), vide Order dated: 09.11.2023, had directed the Respondent Authorities not to take any coercive steps against the Writ Petitioners with regard to the subject property. The said Order is usefully extracted hereunder:
"Notice before admission.
Smt.G.K.V.D.Kumari, learned standing counsel for National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition takes notice on behalf of respondent No.4.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.5 & 6.
Post on 20.11.2023.
Till then the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners with regard to subject property."
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
9. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that the Official Respondents have acquired the land, for the purpose of road widening, on both sides of the existing two lane road on the whole stretch which is under acquisition, whereas, from 621+500 KM to 622+600 KM, i.e., for a distance of about 1.1 KM, the Official Respondents have acquired land only on one side namely on the northern side, without acquiring even an inch of land on the southern side. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Official Respondents have adopted this approach only for the purpose of saving a Petrol Pump, which is 8 existing on the southern side that belongs to a local M.L.A (as he then was). It is, therefore, submitted that if the land is acquired equally on both sides of the road, the Writ Petitioners would be losing minimal land, whereas under the present proposal, the Writ Petitioners would be losing almost their entire land and the house.
PLEADINGS AND SUBMISIONS IN OPPOSITION:
10. The Union of India represented by the Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways and the National Highway Authority of India through its‟ Project Director filed the Counter-Affidavit on 26.04.2024 along with an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A.No.01 of 2024 seeking vacation of the interim Order dated: 09.11.2024 (extracted supra). It is stated in the Counter-Affidavit as follows:
10.1. That the project was undertaken by the National Highway Authority of India for development of Economic Corridors, Inter-Corridors and Feeder Routes to improve the Efficiency of Freight Movement in India under Bharat Mala Prayojana (LOT-3) in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa and Kerala (Package-I). In the present phase, a total distance of about 45.14 KM (from Km.585+820 to Km 630+960) was sought to be widened from the existing two lanes to four lanes of the National Highway under Hybrid Annuity Mode (HAM) in the Mydukur-Badvel Section.
10.2. That the subject work was entrusted to M/s. Louis Berger Consulting Private Limited, Haryana for preparation of Detailed Project Report (D.P.R).9
Accordingly, an Agreement was executed between the NHAI and M/s.Louis Berger Consulting Private Limited, Haryana on 11.05.2017. 10.3. That the D.P.R Consultant has commenced its‟ services and submitted the final „Detailed Project Report‟. Based on the site conditions and after thorough study by the experts in different fields, the D.P.R consultant has submitted the final D.P.R "by keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest". (emphasis supplied) 10.4. That the Respondent No.2 has issued Gazette Notification on 19.05.2021 under Section 3A of the NHAI Act, 1956 for acquisition of the lands to an extent of Ac.262.0284 hectors for four-laning of Mydukur-Badvel section of NH-67 and the same was published in two newspapers on 06.06.2021, calling for objections from the interested persons in the land within 21 days from the date of publication and for use of the land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-Section (1) of Section 3C of the NH Act, 1956. 10.5. That after receipt of the Letter from Respondent No.4, the Respondent No.3 had obtained Report from the D.P.R Consultant. The D.P.R Consultant, in its‟ Report, has stated that: "the Proposal of widening of Chennampalle Village (from Km.621.400 to Km.623.900) the four lanes widening on LHS (Left Hand Side) considering the utilization of recently rebuilt the existing road on the RHS (Right Hand Side). Accordingly, the land acquisition was also proposed on LHS side."
1010.6. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 vide Letter No.NHAI/ PIU-KDP/NH- 67/LA/2021/95, dated: 24.11.2021 have submitted the Report to the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District. As per the information furnished by the Respondent No.4, the objections of the Writ Petitioners have been considered and had passed the Orders vide Proceeding No.NHAI-67-178-2021, dated:19.02.2022, disallowing the objections filed by the Writ Petitioners and had communicated the response to the Writ Petitioners.
10.7. That the D.P.R Consultant, in response to the Order of this Court dated:
17.11.2021 in W.P.No.26670 of 2021 (Ex.P.6), has once again submitted its‟ response as under:
"The existing road in this location is of two lane carriageway and accordingly widening to four lanes considered on Left Hand Side (LHS), considering of the use of the recently rebuilt existing road, its condition and that the widening of LHS was necessitated considering the adjoining stretches and it constrains also along the project road stretch on both sides. It is also stated that, besides, the Land Acquisition Committee (LAC) of NHAI approved the widening scheme/proposals. Therefore, the land acquisition work conducted in view of the above consideration on LHS."
10.8. That the acquisition Notification contained the names of the Writ Petitioner Nos. 1, 7 and 10. The Writ Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 of the present Writ Petition belong to one family and they are all residing together in one house. 10.9. That in response to the Notification calling for objections, several persons attended the 3G Award Enquiry before the Competent Authority -cum- 11 Joint Collector on 24.06.2022 and submitted their claims along with necessary documentary evidence claiming compensation.
10.10. That the 3G Award was passed by the Joint Collector for Chennampalli Village covering an extent of Ac.19.79 cents for ₹.20,49,45,189/- vide Proceeding No. NHAI/172/2021 (Award No.08/2022-23) dated: 18.09.2022 awarding land compensation to the respective land owners, as per the claims filed by the individuals.
10.11. That after passing of the Award No.08/2022/2023, dated: 18.09.2022, the same was published in Telugu vernacular and English newspapers on 30.03.2023 requesting all the rightful claimants to collect the compensation amount from the office of the Competent Authority (L.A) within a period of 60 days; that another public Notice was also issued after expiry of 60 days and published on 31.05.2023 requesting the land owners to surrender their land that stood acquired and deliver the possession thereafter to the Competent Authority forthwith, failing which, possession will be taken with the assistance of the local police in accordance with sub section (2) of the Section 3E of the Act, 1956.
10.12. That the land compensation for the above stated amount was also deposited with the joint account of the Competent Authority (L.A-cum-Joint Collector) on 10.03.2023 and the said amounts were also said to have been disbursed to the rightful claimants; whereas, the Writ Petitioners have not attended the 3G enquiry and have failed to submit their claims with 12 documentary evidence and bank account details. So far, approximately an amount of ₹.12,07,44,053/- was disbursed by the Competent Authority (L.A), which works out to 58.92% of the total awarded amount to various claimants. 10.13. The Concessionaire of the project was also informed by the NHAI vide Letter No.NHAI/PIU-KDP/NHAI-2023/07 dated:26.06.2023 for commencement of the execution works. The Concessionaire is rapidly executing the widening work for the purpose of completing the project within the stipulated time as per the provisions of the Concessionaire Agreement. 10.14. Several material documents are also filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with the Counter-Affidavit dated 25.04.2024. 10.15. In order to have clarity in the matter, this Court has further directed the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file an additional Affidavit by giving details of the entire process that was undertaken by the said Respondents. In response to the direction of this Court, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed two additional Affidavits along with material papers through the Project Director of the current project, representing NHAI. One Affidavit was filed on 25.07.2024 along with the relevant Map. The second Affidavit was filed on 10.09.2024 along with several material documents. 10.16. These Affidavits which are filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 dated 25.07.2024 and 10.09.2024 are of material relevance in this case, which necessitates this Court to advert to the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 dated 25.07.2024. In paragraph Nos. 7 and 13 8 of the said Affidavit dated 25.07.2024, it has been stated that the approval of alignment is very vital and hence the Land Acquisition Committee (LAC) needs to consider and finalize the alignment of the project first, before considering the land acquisition plan of the project. 10.17. It has been stated in the Affidavit that the consideration is done by way of two stages by the Land Acquisition Committee (LAC). Stage-1 is meant for consideration and approval of the project alignment; and Stage-2 is meant for approval of land acquisition plan. Para No.8 of the said Affidavit has detailed the procedure followed in Stage-1. Para No.9 of the said Affidavit has detailed the procedure relating to Stage-2. 10.18. Although, the contents of this Affidavit are crucial, for the sake of brevity, this Court has avoided extracting the said Affidavit in its entirety. It is also stated that the Land Acquisition Committee (LAC) comprises five members belonging to the National Highway Authority of India. The Land Acquisition Committee (LAC) has received three options from the Detailed Project Report Consultant (M/s. Louis Berger Consulting Private Limited, Haryana). Para No.12 of the Affidavit dated 25.07.2024 has provided the details as regards the project alignment.
10.19. As indicated earlier that the dispute in the present Writ Petition is with regard to a stretch earmarked from KM 621+500 to KM 622+600 which has a length of 1.1 KM (i.e., 1100 meters) on the Mydukur to Badvel Highway. The description of the Kilometers stretch (KM 621+500 to KM 14 622+600) would commence from the Mydukur direction and ascend towards Badvel direction. The proposed acquisition which is under challenge would fall on the Left Hand Side (LHS), which is also in the Northern direction while proceeding from Mydukur to Badvel. 10.20. Para No.12 of the Affidavit dated 25.07.2024 filed by the Project Director, NHAI, P.I.U. Kadapa (Respondent No.3) is usefully extracted hereunder:
"12. In respect of the contention of the Petitioner regarding the finalization of Project alignment, it is submitted that;
(i) From Km.619+700 to Km.620+800 of NH-
67, the existing road is 4-lane (without paved shoulder), which has been utilized fully and symmetrical widening for 4-lane (with paved shoulder) has been proposed to avoid any infructuous expenditure and minimise land acquisition (LA) including social issues related to LA.
(ii) However, from Km.620+800 to Km.621+400 of NH-67, symmetrical widening could not be proposed due to proposed new Major Bridge on right hand side over river Sagileru on its downstream where widening for 4-lane (with paved shoulder) has been proposed on right hand side. As per codal requirements, the New Major Bridge needs to be provided on the downstream side of the existing bridge to ascertain the hydraulic parameters similar to the existing bridge, therefore the widening for this stretch is kept on the right side and a new Major bridge is accordingly proposed on the right-hand side.
In addition, it is also submitted that if the new Major Bridge is proposed on the left-hand side of the existing bridge, its foundation and piers will obstruct and modify the flow pattern for which the existing bridge 15 was designed. This will also create the turbulent flow condition on the right-hand side of new bridge which will damage the foundation of existing bridge in due course.
(iii) From Km.621+400 to Km.621+700 of NH-67, there is a reverse curve on the existing road which is not suitable for the design speed requirement. Accordingly, the alignment at this location has been modified and the widening is proposed from right to left, to comply with the IRC codal provisions.
(iv) Near Km.622+100 and Km.622+200 of NH-67, there are Govt. Hospital and Burial ground respectively on the right-hand side of existing road, accordingly the proposed widening has been proposed on left hand side between Km.621+700 to Km.622+600 in such a way that existing road is utilized as service/slip road on right hand side required for entry to & exit from the highway and also to minimize disturbance due to land acquisition required for service/slip road.
(v) From Km 622+600 of NH-67 onwards, the existing road is 4-lane (without paved shoulder), which has been utilized fully and symmetrical widening for 4-lane (with paved shoulder) has been proposed to avoid any infructuous expenditure and minimise land acquisition (LA) including social issues related to LA.
Therefore, the proposed widening/improvements have been finalised by utilizing the existing road to the maximum extent possible after due consideration of site constraints as also minimum LA, minimum social disturbance and to avoid traffic inconvenience during implementation."
11. The National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI) has also placed on record a „Pendrive‟ showing the aerial view of the proposed acquisition. This Court has examined the contents of the Pendrive on the computer screen. It is noticed that the technical demarcation from KM 621+500 to KM 622+600 16 has been superimposed on the aerial view of the proposed acquisition. However, when this is carefully compared with the Maps filed by the National Highway Authority along with their additional Affidavits dated 25.07.2024 and 10.09.2024, it appears to this Court that they have superimposed the specific demarcation in the reverse. The Pendrive indicates that the KM 621+500 ascends towards KM 622+600 from Badvel to Maydukur, which is wholly incorrect. Therefore, this Court has not placed any reliance on the contents of the Pendrive supplied by the NHAI.
Rejoinder by the Writ Petitioners
12. The Writ Petitioners have filed Reply/Re-joinder on 03.05.2024 for the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In paragraph No.5 of the Reply/ Re-joinder, the Writ Petitioners have specifically denied the allegations made by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that, except the Writ Petitioners 7 and 10 the other Writ Petitioners have not filed any objections. The Writ Petitioners, through their Re-joinder, have also denied any communication being made to the Writ Petitioners about passing of the Orders vide Proceeding dated:
19.02.2022 disallowing the objections of the Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners have stoutly denied the receipt of any Order said to have been passed on 19.02.2022. Para No.6 of the Reply/Re-joinder has highlighted the owes of the Writ Petitioners vis-a-vis the present acquisition.
13. On 15.07.2024, the Tahsildar (Respondent No.6) has filed Counter- Affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Respondent No.6 has completely denied that the acquisition was undertaken exclusively on the 17 Northern side only for favoring the owner of Petrol Pump. It is also stated that the Revenue Department only acquires the required land and hands-it over to the Acquisition Department basing on the final Detailed Project Report submitted by the D.P.R Consultant. It is specifically stated that the Revenue Department acquires the land as per the requisition made by the National Highway Authority of India, but no power is vested with the Revenue Department in fixation of road alignment in respect of the National Highways.
14. The Tahsildar (Respondent No.6), along with the Counter-Affidavit, has filed Proceeding dated: 19.02.2022 bearing reference No.NHAI-67/178/2021 wherein, the objections raised by the Writ Petitioners, the response of the Project Director as well as the Competent Authority (L.A) in respect of the objections of the Writ Petitioners are already mentioned in Sl. Nos. 32, 33, 38 and 39 of the said Proceedings.
15. The Writ Petitioners have filed a Reply/Re-joinder to the Counter- Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on 22.07.2024 by raising several contentions. The Writ Petitioners have raised a new contention which is usefully extracted hereunder:
"It is further relevant to state here that if at all the statement/contention of the respondent authorities is believed to be true the respondent authorities have to acquire the land on Right Hand Side (RHS) of the existing two-line road in continuation with the new bridge as the new bridge is proposed on Right Hand Side (RHS) of the existing two line road but not on Left Hand Side (LHS) of the existing road and further in our lands 1st petitioner has the newly built house and a huge water pipe line is existing and the entire pipe line and the 1st petitioner newly built house will 18 be damaged if at all only on Left Hand Side (LHS) land is allowed to be acquired. It would be relevant to state here that there exists the drinking water pipeline, running for about 3.5 KM on NH-67, provides drinking water to the entire town of Badvel."
16. In view of the urgency, a mention was made by Sri Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India expressing the urgency for taking up hearing. On 26.07.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have filed Additional-Affidavit along with sketch. The additional material papers consists of the Descriptive Sketch of the entire extent of 1.1 KM from KM 621+500 to KM 622+600.
17. Having considered the submissions, on 01.08.2024, this Court has given directions to produce all the documents, which are shown in the list of references in the Proceeding dated: 19.02.2022. On 10.09.2024, the Official Respondent namely the Project Director had placed on record two maps for the purpose of explaining the purpose of acquisition only on the Northern side. The Photographs of the aerial view (with the help of Drone) are also placed on record. The documents and sketches filed along with the Additional Affidavit by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, dated: 10.09.2024 are of material relevance in the present Writ Petition, and they would be dealt with henceforth. However, on 11.09.2024 the Writ Petitioners have once again filed another Map with some material. The Official Respondents have placed on record a „Pen Drive‟ of the aerial pictures taken with the help of the Drone on 18.09.2024, and the same is not considered by this Court for the reasons indicated in para-11 above.
19
18. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the Official Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has submitted that the Respondent No.1 has appointed M/s. Louis Berger Consulting Private Limited, Haryana as Detailed Project Report Consultant. The Detailed Project Report Consultant has submitted its final DPR, keeping in view the relative factors including the intensive heavy vehicular traffic and "public interest" insofar as the Notifications issued under the Act is concerned, including calling for objections and would submit that the procedure that is adopted is in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The newspaper publications have been given at every stage and therefore, it cannot be said that the Writ Petitioners did not have any information with regard to the submission of objections. In fact, in the Counter-Affidavit it is clearly stated that the Writ Petitioner Nos. 7 and 10 have submitted their objections.
19. The Writ Petitioners have stoutly denied the averments of the Respondents that only the Writ Petitioner Nos. 7 and 10 have submitted their objections. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that all the Writ Petitioners have submitted their objections and that the Final Orders that were passed on 19.02.2022 were not communicated to the Writ Petitioners. The contention of the Respondents that several other Claimants have responded to the Final Proceeding dated: 19.02.2022 bearing reference No.NHAI-67/178/2021 and the fact that thereafter several other Claimants have participated in the Award enquiry etc., was denied by the Writ Petitioners.
20
20. Insofar as the main contention of the Writ Petitioners that the decision to acquire the land only on the Northern side is unreasonable and arbitrary, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has taken this Court through the two maps filed by the Official Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by way of Affidavit dated 10.09.2024. One map is an imaginary one in terms of the demand made by the Writ Petitioners herein. This map would indicate the imaginary alignment if the demand of the Writ Petitioners is to be given effect. This map is at page „84‟ of this Affidavit dated 10.09.2024. At page „85‟ of the Affidavit, there is another map, which portrays the alignment which is finalized under the Detailed Project Report. The buildings and other structures (including the petrol pump) in both the Maps are one and the same; whereas, there is a change of alignment in both the Maps as indicated therein.
21. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to many structures which are there on the Southern side of the road. One such structure is the Petrol Bunk. Apart from this Petrol Pump, the other notable structures are: (1) the Government Hospital at Thottigaripalli village; (2) A Burial Ground belonging to the Muslim Community and at least about 9 structures (big and small) on the Southern side, whereas, on the Northern side, there is only one structure belonging to the Writ Petitioners which is of a small sized structure.
22. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, if the demand of the Writ Petitioners is to be given effect, totally about 12 structures including the Petrol Pump, Government Hospital, Burial Ground and several other small and big 21 structures on the Southern side will have to be demolished, but on the northern side (Left side), only the structure belonging to the Writ Petitioners will have to be acquired for the purpose of land acquisition.
23. The issue of pipeline raised by the Writ Petitioners herein is concerned, it is submitted that the same is not of much significance inasmuch as the same can be re-aligned. Some of the villagers who were receiving water from the said pipeline have also submitted Representation that the supply of drinking water shall not be interrupted.
24. Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners have placed reliance on the following judgments;
(1) In Syed Hussain and others Vs. The Joint Secretary, P.W.D. (R & B), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others; (1994 (2) ALD 48 (D.B.)). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the said Judgment. Particularly, Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned Counsel has submitted that with reference to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Rules (under Land Acquisition Act, 1984), it is mandatory on the part of the Official Respondents to consider the said Objections and pass a reasoned Order before proceeding with the further acquisition process. The Paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the above Judgment are extracted hereunder:
"4. Rule 3 as a whole reads as follows:22
"Rule 3:- (a) if a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-
section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections any, may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.
(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections." There cannot be any ambiguity in the mind of the Court that this Rule 3 has got relevance to and has come to be formulated only in the context of Section 5-A of the Act. It is better that we have a look at Section 5-A of the Act also by extracting the same as follows:
5-A. Hearing of objections:- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose of for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-
section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be 23 entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act."
Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act enables a person interested in any land subject matter of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to object to the acquisition of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act requires that every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing. It further requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by Pleader. It further mandates the Collector, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry if any, as he thinks necessary, to either make a report in respect of the land covered by the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government. The said report shall contain the recommendations of the Collector on the objections together with record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government. Then only the appropriate Government takes the decision on the objections and the said decision is held to be final. Understanding as to what should happen under Section 5-A of the Act if we look into Rule 3, of the Rules which got formulated as noted above, in relation to and in the context of Section 5-A of the Act, we find clause (a) of Rule3 of the rules saying that if a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land, it shall be summarily rejected. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners as advanced through their learned Counsel, clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules must be concentrated upon, and its implications can be summed up as follows: If objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department. Here, the requiring Department is the third respondent and the purpose of, acquisition is to establish a Telephone Exchange. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to the requiring Department. The requiring Department may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector, a Statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Clause (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates follow-up action when it says that on the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his Pleader and the representative of the requiring Department and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections. Only after the processes as contemplated by the above provisions viz., Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 and in particular clause (b) thereof, of the Rules are complied with, further steps towards acquisition could be prosecuted.
5. In the instant case what is being complained of is that objections were made by the petitioners who are the owners of the 24 land subject matter of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, but the Collector did not go through the processes contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. In Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1192 of 1993 to the ground raised specifically in this behalf, we find there is no rebuttal by the side of the respondents. During the course of hearing of this writ appeal, we queried Mr. R. Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as to whether the objections of the petitioners were forwarded to the requisitioning Department for the purpose of getting its remarks for being considered during the course of further enquiry as contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The answer given by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was in the negative. Thus we find that the requirements of clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules, stood violated in the instant case.
8. Mr. E. Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners did have the other contentions to pressforth and urge before us. Since we have upheld the contention built on the violation of Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 (b) of the Rules, we have not found a necessity to go into the other contentions.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to uphold the decision of the learned single Judge and on the other hand we are obliged to interfere in this writ appeal. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal; set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow Writ Petition No. 9834 of 1989. It must be noted here that during the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the fact that this Court confined the interim direction only to dispossession, further proceedings concerning acquisition of land have been prosecuted and we find an award has ensured on 18-9-1991. In view of the vital infirmity concerning the violation of the mandatory provisions, the proceedings which ensued pursuant to the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act must also fall to the ground and we declare it to be so. We make no order as to costs." 24.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also placed on record the Judgment in Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy Vs. Union Government of India, Department of Shipping Roads, Transport & Highways, rep., by the Secretary and others; 2012 (6) ALT 651 (D.B.). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos. 6
(d), 15, 18 and 19 of this Judgment. Learned Counsel would submit that un- communicated Government Order is inoperative. He would submit that the Proceeding dated: 19.02.2022, has set out reasons for rejecting the 25 objections, but it has not been communicated to the Writ Petitioners, therefore, it is inoperative. The above Paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"6. We have perused the record of the 4th respondent pertaining to the impugned acquisition proceedings. The chronology of facts relevant may be noticed:
(a) ........
(b) .........
(c) .........
(d) In July, 2010 (no date mentioned) the 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. In para-6 it is pleaded that the competent authority (the 4th respondent) had disallowed the objections filed by the petitioner by his proceedings dated 10-06-2009.
15. In State of Punjab Vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, (7) AIR 1961 SC 493, and Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (8) AIR SC 395 and in several other decisions, the Supreme Court consistently declared the principle that an un-communicated administrative order is inoperative. Section 3-C(2) enjoins the competent authority to provide an objector an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to either allow or disallow the objections by an order. Since hearing of objections to the process of acquisition is a valuable right, an objector is entitled to communication of an order passed by the competent authority rejecting his objections and the reasons recorded therefor. Since the order dated 23-06-2009 passed by the 4th respondent was not communicated to the petitioner there is no disposal in law of the petitioner's objections by the competent authority u/s 3-C(2) of the Act.
18. The facts in the above case need to be considered. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging acquisition on the ground that it was not for a public purpose and the proceedings were consequently without jurisdiction. Invocation by the State, of the provisions of Section 17(1) and consequent avoidance of the provisions of Section 5-A was also questioned. By the date of filing of the writ petition, the declaration under Section - 6 (of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), taking of possession and passing of the award and thereon an application (by the appellant) for reference u/s 18 had taken place. The petitioner sought quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 and further proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. It is in this context that the observations in para - 3 were recorded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that a declaration made by the State Government in the notification u/s 6(1) of the Act, that the land was required for a public purpose, is made conclusive by Section 6(3) and it is not open to a Court to go behind it and try to satisfy itself whether in fact the acquisition was for a public 26 purpose. It was also observed that, if it appears that what the Government was satisfied about is not a public purpose but a private purpose or no purpose at all, the action of the Government would be colourable as being outside the power conferred upon it by the Act and its declaration under Section - 6 would be a nullity. This judgment is not an authority for the proposition that once a declaration u/s 3-D of the 1956 Act (corresponding to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act), is made the process of acquisition cannot be challenged even if there be violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 3-C, i.e., denial of opportunity of hearing and non-communication of the order of the competent authority disallowing the objections lodged to the process of acquisition.
19. On the above analyses the appeal requires to be and is allowed. The notification dated 24-09-2009, issued u/s 3 - D, and the public notice dated 01-05-2010 issued u/s 3 - G (only to the extent these pertain to the land of the petitioner - proposed for acquisition) are declared invalid and inoperative. The 4th respondent - the competent authority may however issue a notice to the petitioner intimating the date for hearing, affording reasonable time therefor and upon hearing of such objections, may pass appropriate orders. Such orders shall be communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post Ack. Due. Further process of acquisition, of the petitioner‟s property shall depend on the order passed by the 4th respondent u/s 3-C and proceedings thereafter, under the provisions of the Act, in accordance with law." 24.3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chandrakant Adinath Utture Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors; (AIR 2016 Supreme Court 893). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would place reliance on Para Nos. 3, 7, 14 to
16. These proceedings initiated under the Mahararashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act (32 of 1989).
"3. Under Section 13 of the Act, the State Government has to make a declaration of areas in affected and benefitted zones and also the extent of land to be acquired in the benefitted zone is as per the slabs mentioned in Part II of the Schedule. As far as extent of area constituting the affected zone under the project and the extent of area constituting the benefitted zone is concerned, it is clearly provided under Section 13(2) of the Act that a public notice inviting objections or 27 suggestions is to be issued. After considering the objections and suggestions only, a notification under Section 13 (1) of the Act could be published in the official gazette and by other modes of publication as provided under the Act.
7. Being a pure question of law, it is not necessary to delve deep into the facts and yet we shall refer to a few dates.
14. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State submits that pursuant to the notifications issued under the Act, further steps, as noted below, have been taken for acquisition of the land:
Sl.No Date Particular 1 21.09.2000 Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette. 2 Notice u/s.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was given to the petitioner. 3 28.11.2000 Objections raised by the petitioner u/S.5 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act were heard. 4 14.12.2001 Declaration u/S.6 of Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette. 5 15.01.2002 The Notice u/S.9 (3) (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the petitioner. 6 21.01.2004 Final Award has been declared"
15. Passing of the award by itself does not mean that any illegality should not be addressed. In the instant case, the writ petitions were filed when the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, and in any case, it is submitted by the appellants that they have not been dispossessed so far and no compensation also has been paid.
16. Therefore, the High Court is not right in holding that the requirement of notice on objections and suggestions need only be in respect of the lands coming under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act (the affected zones) and Section 13(1)(b) of the Act (the benefitted zones). The High Court is right, however, in holding that no notice is required in respect of the lands belonging to the slab under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, when it is issued for the first time. However, in case there is a change in the slab reducing the area of exemption from acquisition in the benefitted zone, the procedure under Section 13 (2) of the Act is required to be followed."28
25. On perusal of these Judgments, this Court is of the view that the facts involved in this case are entirely different and the dicta referred above do not apply to the facts in the present case.
26. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
27. In Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and Ors; (2011) 12 SCC 69. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para Nos. 21, 23 and 24 on the preposition that the Court cannot interfere into technical nitty-gritties which is the exclusive domain of the technical experts. The said Judgment would also reiterate the principle that unless mala fides have been alleged and proved, the Court cannot normally interfere with regard to the road alignments in the National Highways. The relevant Paragraphs are usefully extracted hereunder:
"21. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides.
23. We may also refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another MANU/SC/0380/1973: (1974) 4 SCC 3. In that case, the petitioner, who was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary and posted as Officer on Special Duty, challenged the action of government on various grounds 29 including the one that the decision of the government was vitiated due to mala fides of the Chief Minister. This Court rejected the plea of mala fides by making the following observations:
"90. ..... The petitioner set out in the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path of the second respondent and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising acts and notings and contended that the second respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary. The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of maladministration and the charge levelled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course of his duties obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these acts of maladministration, that the second respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same time deflating him that the second respondent transferred him from the post of Chief Secretary. The transfer of the petitioner was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly invalid.
91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in mind two important considerations. In the first place, we must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate into acts of maladministration by the political Government headed by the second respondent. It is not within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry. It is one thing to say that the second respondent was guilty of misrule and another to say that he had malus animus against the petitioner which was the operative cause of the displacement of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited issue, not with the former popular issue. We 30 cannot permit the petitioner to side track the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and malus animus on the part of the second respondent by diverting our attention to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive power. That would be nothing short of drawing a red herring across the trial. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus animus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary.
92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up-these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach-but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It 31 is from this standpoint that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent."
24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."
27.1. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a recent Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.682 of 2019 and Batch, pronounced on 22.10.2020. Learned Single Judge of this Court has analysed various judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court as well as the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Upon such thread bear analysis, the ratio in Surinder Singh Brar's Vs. Union of India; (2013 (1) SCC 403) on the preposition that the Court cannot ignore huge expenditure that is involved with the delay in the projects of national importance had also been considered.
3227.2. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to a Judgment in A.V.S. Viswanatha Raju Vs. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Others; (2023 SCC Online AP 180), wherein the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court held that:
"3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding that the landowners who will be affected under the proposed alignment have not consented for the proposed alignment and that majority of the landowners in the proposed alignment are small and marginal farmers, whereas the writ petitioner is a big farmer having Ac.12.52 cents of agricultural lands. It is also held that due to the existing alignment, the writ petitioner alone would suffer to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents, however, if the alignment is changed, more than 33 farmers who own small extent of land and solely dependent on agriculture, would suffer. It was also found that the argument of the writ petitioner that the existing alignment is in a curved manner and the new alignment if approved will be like a straight line and thereby reduces the distance by one kilometre is also incorrect, because the distance would be reduced only by 96 metres; thus, there will be no substantial cost reduction in the new alignment.
4. The learned single Judge has balanced the pros and cons of the original alignment and the new alignment to conclude that number of small and marginal farmers will be adversely affected if the new alignment is approved, whereas the writ petitioner is a big farmer and that there will be no substantial cost reduction.
5. It is settled law that writ court should be slow in interfering with the decision taken by experts. Before proceeding to acquire land for construction of National Highways or widening thereof, a Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by experts considering the extent of land required for acquisition. Therefore, an individual cannot be allowed to raise objection that the alignment prepared by experts should be changed only for the reason that his lands will be affected by acquisition. It is not the case that the proposed alignment would cover only Government lands and it is clear that the same would affect 33 small farmers. If the lands of the writ petitioner are excluded from acquisition, other group of persons would be adversely affected. Therefore, present is not a case where this court should exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The learned single 33 Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to interfere with the same."
27.3. In Marella Marithi Prasada Rao Vs. Union of India and others; (2017 (2) ALD 704 (DB)) it was held that:
"9. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal over the decisions of the executive, more so where examination, of the technical matters in issue, require expertise of a high order. As this Court lacks the required expertise, to decide questions such as whether the existing alignment is proper, or an alternative alignment would serve larger public interest, it must necessarily defer to the wisdom of the experts in the field, and not take upon itself the task of determining whether a road should be laid in one particular alignment or another. While loss to the public exchequer is undoubtedly one of the considerations which the authorities are bound to bear in mind, while deciding on the nature of alignment of a road, there are several other factors which may also weigh in their decision to prescribe a particular alignment for the proposed national highway. (emphasis supplied)
10. We must express our inability to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that we should undertake the task of determining whether the existing alignment should be continued or not, as we lack the required expertise. While we see no reason to sit in judgment over the decision of the respondents in prescribing a particular road alignment, we cannot also ignore the petitioner's claims that the alternate alignment, through the donka, would save public exchequer of Rs.70.00 crores. We have no reason to doubt that these aspects shall be borne in mind by the authorities concerned in taking a decision whether the proposed alignment should be continued or changed. Any decision, which the respondents may finally take in this regard, can only be after the objections of those, whose lands are being acquired under the Act, are considered in accordance with Section 3-C of the Act." (emphasis supplied) 34 27.4. In Bhimaravarpu Giridhar Kumar Reddy Vs. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary; (in W.A.No.601 of 2023) of this Court. The relevant Paragraph No.13 is usefully extracted hereunder:
"13. Admittedly, the acquisition process started by the Central Government which included the land of the petitioner was for purposes of widening the existing national highway from two lane to a four lane highway. It is not denied that the work on the national highway has been completed except the small portion belonging to the petitioner which is a subject matter of dispute in the present Letters Patent Appeal."
DISCUSSION:
28. Before adverting to the final discussion and analysis, few important aspects in this case are to be taken note of. The pleadings in this case would constitute the Writ Petition, various Affidavits and documents filed by the Writ Petitioners at various stages. The pleadings would also constitute the Counter-Affidavits filed by the Tahsildar from the side of the Department of Revenue, Affidavits filed by the Competent Authority (L.A-cum-Joint Collector, Kadapa, and the Affidavits of the Project Director of NHAI) and the various correspondence between the Officials and the DPR Consultant etc.,. The directions like the „North‟ and the „South‟ and „Left Hand Side‟ (LHS) and „Right Hand Side‟ (RHS) have been used interchangeably. However, the Authorities have indiscriminately used these directions (North and South and Left Hand Side and Right Hand Side) without following a particular pattern thereby leading to confusion due to this mix-up. While considering various documents, this Court had rather fallen into confusion in arriving at a consistent method. Therefore, this Court had felt it safe to rely on the two 35 Maps, which are filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with the Affidavits filed on 25.07.2024 and 10.09.2024 for the purpose of understanding and for the purpose of narration of facts in this judgment.
29. These Maps have pinpointed the area of dispute on the Highway in the present Writ Petition, which starts from Mydukur direction KM 621+500 to KM 622+600 towards Badvel direction. This is a total stretch of 1.1 KM (in other words 1100 meters). The point of KM 621+500 starts from the side of Mydukur and ascends towards the side of the Badvel. The standard usage of this ascending order from the side of Mydukur proceeding towards Badvel, in the opinion of the Court is the safest and consistent method for dealing with this case and also for surmounting the confusion created in the pleadings. When this method is adopted and followed, it is indicated in the Maps that on the Left Hand Side is the Northern direction and on the Right Hand Side is the Southern direction. The land belonging to the Writ Petitioners, which is now sought to be acquired, would fall on the Left Hand Side (LHS) (North side) and the disputed Petrol Pump and other building structures would lie on the Right Hand Side (RHS), which is admittedly the Southern Side. Henceforth, the description and discussion would be on these parameters as indicated below:
From Mydukur direction towards Badvel direction Ascends from KM 621+500 to KM 622+600 Total distance is KM 1.1 (1100 meters) Northern direction is on the Left Hand Side (LHS) Southern direction is on the Right Hand Side (RHS).36
30. The above details are illustrated in the following manner with regard to the ground position:
LHS Proposed Acquisition (under challenge) N W E S Mydukur Badvel KM 621+500 KM 622+600 KM.1.1 (1100 meters) RHS Petrol Pump, Government Hospital, Muslim Burial Ground & several other structures 30.1. In the above premise, this Court is required to examine the two fold contentions which are raised by the Writ Petitioners, which are:
(i) that the acquisition was done entirely on the Northern side (LHS) for the expansion of the road only with a view to favour the owner of the Petrol Pump which is on the Southern side (RHS); and,
(ii) that no response was communicated to the Writ Petitioners for the objections raised by them.
30.2. Whereas, these two contentions have been completely denied by the Official Respondents.
37
31. The two fold contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners are no more res integra. The law on both the situations has been well settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions.
32. Insofar as the first contention of the Writ Petitioners is concerned i.e., that the acquisition was done entirely on northern side (LHS) for the expansion of road only with a view to favour the owner of the Petrol Pump, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that it is not for the Court to look into the „nitty-gritties‟, insofar as the technical decisions arrived at by the Experts are concerned. It is already considered in the foregone paragraphs that the Expert Body namely the Detailed Project Report Consultant (M/s. Louis Berger Consulting Private Limited, Haryana) has already rendered the final Detailed Project Report. The Respondent Authorities have considered the road safety vis-à-vis the public interest. It has weighed the amount of expenditure that would be incurred by the Respondent Authorities, if the land is acquired on the northern side (LHS) as well as the southern side (RHS). It has been noted very clearly that on the southern side (RHS) there is presence of several large and small structures apart from the Petrol Pump. The Authority has also considered the fact that on the northern side (LHS) there is only one house belonging to the Writ Petitioners.
33. In order to balance the public interest in terms of expenditure, the Respondent Authorities have rather thought it fit to acquire the land only on the northern side (LHS), since the same would put lesser burden on the Public Exchequer and the inconvenience caused. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has 38 sounded a strong caveat insofar as the interference by the High Courts under its writ jurisdiction is concerned.
34. In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others : (2022) 6 SCC 127 : the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.13 of the Judgment that:
"in contracts involving technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above, the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder."
35. In Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., : (2016) 15 SCC 272, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.26 that:
"exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one."
36. In Nand Kishore Gupta and others v. State of U.P., and Others :
(2010) 10 SCC 282, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.35 as under:
"Private Interest Vs. Public Interest
35. In fact, in Balbir Singh case [Balbir Singh v. State of U.P., CMWP No. 48978 of 2008 decided on 5-10-2009] , it was pointed out that out of the 12,315 affected farmers in 133 villages over the total area of 1638 ha of the Expressway, 11,387 have already received compensation and only 142 farmers have raised the issues. The High Court has rightly held that the private interest is always affected to some extent in such large schemes requiring the acquisition of land. The High Court has rightly held that a holistic view had to be taken to look for an all round development without forgetting about our heritage, culture and traditions. We also, therefore, would not entertain the objections, feebly raised before us, individually."39
37. In Daulat Singh Surana and Others v. First Land Acquisition Collector and Orthers: (2007) 1 SCC 641, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.40 as under:
"40. Public purpose will include a purpose in which the general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned. (emphasis supplied)."
38. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., and Others : (1999) 1 SCC 492, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.12 held as under :
"12. ..................................................................... ........................................................................... .................................................................If the project is for the construction of a road or an irrigation canal, the delay in transportation facility becoming available or the delay in water supply for agriculture being available, can be a substantial setback to the country's economic development. Where the decision has been taken bona fide and a choice has been exercised on legitimate considerations and not arbitrarily, there is no reason why the court should entertain a petition under Article 226."
39. In Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others : (2023) 11 SCC 79, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para Nos.92 to 100 as under :
"C.3. Public Interest v. Private Interest
92. It is important for us to take stock of the nature of the present dispute. The appellants are private citizens who have valid title and ownership over the land in question. Without doubt, their personal and private rights are of great importance. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the rights of an individual carry immense importance and are the foundational blocks on which our legal, social, and political milieu thrives. Under no circumstances should the rights of individual citizens be trodden upon arbitrarily and any curtailment of them must be scrutinised with utmost care.40
93. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that in several situations, the needs of the many must outweigh that of the few. We say so not with any fervour nor as a mantra, but as a solemn acknowledgment of the realities of modern life. The question of what constitutes "public interest" has been contemplated upon multiple times and the history of this Court is full of musings by different Benches on the exact contours of this phrase in the context of various situations and statutes.
94. In Manimegalai v. LAO [Manimegalai v. LAO, (2018) 13 SCC 491 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 252] , it was surmised that : (SCC p. 495, para 14) "14. Similarly, public purpose is not capable of precise definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of the purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to serve the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individual. Public purpose broadly speaking would include the purpose in which the general interest of the society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual is directly and vitally concerned. Generally, the executive would be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a section of the society may be public purpose when it is benefitted by the acquisition. The acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done compulsorily."
95. In B.P. Sharma v. Union of India [B.P. Sharma v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 309] the nebulous nature of phrases such as "public interest" or "in the interest of the general public" was commented upon, with the Court stating : (SCC p. 319, para 15) "15. ... The phrase "in the interest of the general public" has come to be considered in several decisions and it has been held that it would comprise within its ambit interests like public health and morals ..., economic stability ..., stability of the country, equitable distribution of essential commodities at fair prices ... for maintenance of purity in public life, prevention of fraud and similar considerations."
96. This point was emphasised in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi [Bihar Public 41 Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 131] as well, which held that no strict definition for "public interest"
existed : (SCC pp. 73-74, para 22) "22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs.... It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake...."
97. It is unnecessary to belabour the point. The proposition is simply that the notion of public interest will necessarily reflect the specificities of the situation at hand. In the present case, the public interest which has been emphasised upon by the respondents is the urgent need for the creation of a connecting road through the appellants' property. The need stems from the traffic congestion caused on the route from the Mahakali Caves to the Central MIDC. The lack of a direct linkage requires detours to be taken that significantly increase commuting time and cause inconvenience to the general public.
98. When the public interest is so clearly articulated and is an urgent and pressing exigency, private interests must give way to the extent required. This Court has acknowledged this before, such as in Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re [Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 820 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 241 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 810] : (SCC pp. 63-64, para 119) "119. The right to freedom in a democracy has to be exercised in terms of Article 19(1)(a) subject to public order. Public order and public tranquillity is a function of the State which duty is discharged by the State in the larger public interest. The private right is to be waived against public interest. The action of the State and the police was in conformity with law. As a large number of persons were to assemble on the morning of 5-6- 2011 and considering the other attendant circumstances seen in the light of the inputs received from the intelligence agencies, the permission was revoked and the persons 42 attending the camp at Ramlila Maidan were dispersed."
(emphasis supplied)
99. In K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] , the origins of "Eminent Domain"
were traced and the ethos behind acquisition of land by the Government for public good was discussed. The Court elaborated on this in the following terms : (SCC p. 44, para 134) "134. Hugo Grotius is credited with the invention of the term "eminent domain" (jus or dominium eminens) which implies that public rights always overlap with private rights to property, and in the case of public utility, public rights take precedence. Grotius sets two conditions on the exercise of the power of eminent domain : the first requisite is public advantage and then compensation from the public funds be made, if possible, to the one who has lost his right. Application of the above principle varies from countries to countries. German, American and Australian Constitutions bar uncompensated takings. Canada's Constitution, however, does not contain the equivalent of the taking clause, and eminent domain is solely a matter of statute law, the same is the situation in United Kingdom which does not have a written constitution as also now in India after the Forty-fourth Constitution Amendment."
(emphasis supplied)
100. With these considerations in mind, we deem the present case to be an appropriate instance where public interest must have paramountcy over private interest. We emphasise once again before parting that the rights of the individual must only be watered down when the necessary circumstances demanding such a drastic measure exist."
40. Having considered the ratio in the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Court would not hesitate to hold that the acquisition of land on the northern side (LHS) is just and reasonable. It is further held that such acquisition is not vitiated with any mala fides so as to favour the owner of the Petrol Pump.
43
41. Insofar as the second contention of the Writ Petitioners is concerned, the Writ Petitioners were not communicated with the response of the Official Respondents for the objections raised by them, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents would contend that, vide Proceeding dated 19.02.2022 issued by the competent authority (Land Acquisition) and the Joint Collector, Kadapa bearing Ref.No.NHAI-67/178/2021, which is filed along with the Counter Affidavit by the Respondent No.6, stating clearly at Sl.Nos.32, 33, 38 & 39 that the proposal of the Writ Petitioners was forwarded to the Project Director, NHAI, Kadapa and the said Project Director has rejected the same on the ground that it is a technical issue and the proposal for change of alignment as requested by the Writ Petitioners cannot be accepted on the basis that such proposal for change of alignment is not feasible.
42. It is also noticed that after Proceedings dated 19.02.2022 were issued, majority of the claimants have acted upon and have received the compensation. In this view of the matter, this Court opines that the contention raised by the Writ Petitioners that there is no communication from the Official Respondents, cannot be accepted. Even assuming for a moment that the Official Respondents have not communicated the above said Proceedings, particularly to the Writ Petitioners, it is not a case that goes to the very root of the matter, which can vitiate the entire Land Acquisition Proceedings.
43. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others : (1997) 1 SCC 134 , the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Para No.10 held as under:
44
"10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 -- indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non- compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."45
44. Having regard to the discussion on facts as well as the law, this Court is of the opinion that the objections raised by the Writ Petitioners have been considered not only by the competent authority but also by the Project Director and that the same has been communicated to all the Claimants from several villages including the residents of Chennampalli, Rayappagaripalli, G.V. Satram, N. Gollapalli, Tottigaripalli and Gunthapalli etc, including the Writ Petitioners herein. It is also the opinion of this Court that the decision rendered by the Official Respondents is neither arbitrary nor is it vitiated by any mala fides. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No Order as to Costs.
45. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Mnr/JKS Dt. 10.04.2025 Note: L.R Copy to be marked.
46261
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.29343 OF 2023 Mnr/JKS Dt. 10.04.2025 Note: L.R Copy to be marked.