Telangana High Court
Kotala Bhadraiah And 28 Others vs The Union Of India And 6 Others on 3 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4586/2023, 26596/2024 and 26685/2024 COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition Nos.4586 of 2023 and 26685 of 2024 are filed by the petitioners questioning the notification issued under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956, vide Gazette notification dated 30.03.2022 and consequential notification dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of the Act, for acquiring the lands for the purpose of development of Greenfield Regional Expressway on the Northern side of Hyderabad, whereby the Highway alignment has been laid under Bharatmala Pariyojana as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and violtiave of principles of natural justice and prayed to set aside Gazette Notifications dated 30.03.2022 and 19.04.2022 and for other appropriate reliefs.
3. Writ Petition No.26596 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of respondents in proposing the alignment and dumbbell interchange for the Development of Greenfield Regional Expressway under Bharatmala Pariyojana through the 2 petitioners two cropped patta agricultural lands in Peddapur Village of Sadasivpet Mandal and Girmapur village of Kondapur Mandal of Sanga Reddy District as notified in S.O.2757(E), dated 15.07.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, biased, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and for other appropriate reliefs.
4. Writ Petition No.26685 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners and pattedars of various extents of lands situated at Gokaram Village, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. It is their case that the revenue authorities issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds and they are also receiving investment subsidies for cultivation of their lands. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 has issued Gazette notification vide S.O.No.1474 (E) dated 30.03.2022 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act, 1956 authorizing the officers mentioned in Column No.2 of the Schedule Annexed to the notification to perform the functions w.e.f. date of publication of notification in the official Gazette, in respect of the stretch of land from Km. 0+000 to Km. 158+645 of the Project "Development of Greenfield Regional Expressway on Northern side of Hyderabad connecting from Girmapur village (on NH-65 at Chainage Km. 492+200) in Sangareddy District to Choutuppal (on 3 NH-65 Chainage km 55+400) in Yadadari Bhuvanagiri district via Medak and Siddipet District, comprising total design length 158+645 km in the State of Telangana under Bharatmala Pariyojana". NH Number yet to be assigned for building (widening/four laning etc) maintenance, management and operation in the State of Telangana. Said notification also contains the various villages which are effected under the said Expressway. According to the petitioners, in the Revenue Division of Choutuppal, from the stretch of 133.178 KM to 158.645 KM in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District in Valigonda Mandal, nine villages have been notified. Thereafter, the respondents have issued Final Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956 vide S.O.No.1872(E) dated 19.04.2022 notifying the Brief Description of the land to be acquired with or without structures falling in the stretch of land from KM.133.178 to Km.158.645 for Development of Greenfield Regional Expressway on Northern side of Hyderabad under Bharatmala Pariyojana in the Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the notification dated 19.04.2022 certain villages have been excluded from the acquisition with a mala fide intention without providing them the opportunity of personal hearing. While acquiring the lands, the respondents have not taken into consideration that the petitioners are solely depending on their agricultural income and acquiring the said lands for formation of Expressway would cause lot of hardship 4 and having excluded certain villages from acquisition for formation of the road, intentionally retained their villages at the behest of the political hierarchy, which action amounts to non-application of mind, biased, arbitrary, mala fide and politically motivated for extraneous reasons. In support of their case, the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in i) State of Haryana vs. Mohinderpal 1 ii) D.K. Yadav vs. JMA Industries Ltd. 2, iii) ADM Jabalpur vs. Shiva Kanth Shukla 3 and iv) Shiv Sing and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 4 and prayed this Court to set aside the notifications impugned in the writ petitions.
6. The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), submitted requisition for acquisition of lands, coming under alignment of Greenfield of Regional Expressway on Northern side of Hyderabad. It is stated that in exercise of powers under Section 3(a) of the Act, the Central Government issued preliminary notification authorizing competent authority as specified under the Act, to perform the functions in the said notification. The village names mentioned in the said notification are tentative and basing on the preliminary survey/revenue maps, a detailed notification under 1 (2001) 9 SCC 292 2 (1993) 3 SCC 259 3 (1976) 2 SCC 521 4 2018 (16) SCC 270 5 Section 3A of the Act, with brief description of the lands was issued. It is further stated that objections received with regard to change of alignment after publication of alignment have been forwarded to the Project Director, NHAI, Project Implementation Unit, Gazwel, vide Lr.No.B1/711/2022 dated 05.09.2022, 06.09.2022, 19.09.2022, 23.09.2022 and 23.01.2023, requested to examine the same and intimate the action taken, so as to enable the respondent to dispose off, the objections received. Accordingly, the concerned National Highways authorities, replied that "the project length qualify for establishing 3 wayside amenities facilities in (3) locations have been fixed considering the start and end points, interchange locations and other aspects of Expressway. Shifting the way side amenity towards Choutuppal may not be useful to commuters; therefore, shifting of proposed Wayside amenities is not feasible. Therefore, it is also not feasible to shift the alignment." It is further stated that after obtaining remarks from NH authorities, a meeting has been conducted, as per the provision of Section 3(C) of the Act, with all the villagers on 19.01.2023. The said reply has been issued to the concerned objection petitioners in writing, vide Proceedings No.B1/711/2022, dated 13.03.2023. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that there is no change of alignment as per the Detailed Project Report prepared in the year 2021 and the allegation that in order to save the lands of three bigwigs of three villages is incorrect and the petitioners 6 relying on the preliminary survey and tentative notification has made allegations against the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. R. Swarnalatha @ Bramhadandi Swarnalatha, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4586 of 2023 and 26685 of 2024, Sri Kambalapalli Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.26596 of 2024, and Mr. Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing the office of the learned Advocate General, Sri Madishetty Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI; learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings; learned Government Pleader for Revenue; Sri Pranav Munigela, learned Additional Standing Counsel for TSPCB; Sri B. Jithender, learned Central Government Counsel, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and perused the record.
8. The Government of India, while considering the Report of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) for Infrastructure, CRZ and other miscellaneous projects in its 296th meeting held during 28th and 29th April, 2022, in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi and the Detailed Project Report, proposed to 7 develop Greenfield Regional Expressway on Northern side of Hyderabad connecting from Girmapur village (on NH-65 at Ch 492.200 km) in Sangareddy district to Choutuppal (on NH-65 at Ch.55.400 km) in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district via Medak and Siddipet District, comprising total design length 158.645 km, in the state of Telangana under Bharatmala Pariyojana and granted tentative approval at an estimated cost of Rs.8407.397 Crore. It is further stated in the said Report that the above proposed Project in approximately, an extent of 1903.40 Acres are required, out of the same an extent of 1746.353 is a private agricultural land, an extent of 95.187 is the Government land and an extent of 62.200 is Forest Land. It is also stated in the said Report that there is no Protected Area or Eco-Sensitive Zone within the 10KMs radius of the proposed Project Road. The said Report also says that approximately, 75 Nos. of structures are coming in the proposed Right of Way and the land will be acquired as per the procedure. The said Report also studies various aspects relating to the Eco-sensitive Zone, Green Belt area, rainwater harvesting, compensation payable to the land losers, the general conditions relating to the project description and design, Pollution Control, safety measures while taking project work. In terms of the above Report, the respondent No.1 has taken a decision in the large public interest, for formation of Greenfield Regional Expressway.
8
9. With the above object, while exercising the powers under Section 3(a) of the Act, the tentative notification has been issued by the respondent No.1 appointing competent authority to exercise the powers under the Act and notifying the tentative proposed stretch of road and the localities. Thereafter, a final notification under Section 3A of the Act has been issued giving brief description of the land to be acquired falling in the stretch of land, its classification, extent and nature of the land. Section 3(a) of the Act, defines the competent authority.
(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;
10. Section 3A of the Act confers power to acquire land. It reads as under:
3A. Power to acquire land, etc.--(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land.
(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.
11. A conjoint reading of above provisions makes it clear that while issuing a notification under Section 3(a) of the Act, the competent authority is conferred with the power to perform the functions outlined in the Act. Section 3A of the Act confers power on 9 the competent authority to issue a notification expressing its intention to acquire the land with brief description of the property. Therefore, the tentative notification issued under Section 3(a) of the Act does not amount to expressing clear intention for acquiring lands unlike the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. The notification issued under Section 3A of the Act is conclusive decision to proceed with the project and for acquiring the lands. Further, Section 3C of the Act, states that any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. The petitioners herein have stated that they have submitted objections on the file of respondent No.4 stating that the initial alignment was changed from Motakonduru Mandal to proposed Raigiri Mandal and Regional Ring Road should be located at a distance from 50 KMs from the existing Outer Ring Road and contrary to the same, the proposed Regional ring Road is just 30 Kms from the existing Outer Ring Road and truck lay bay and parking bay should be constructed at a distance of 80 KMs and proper distance was not mentioned. The petitioners in W.P.No.26596 of 2024 have alleged that their lands are under the Ayacut of Malkapur Peddacheruvu and the interchange of alignment is very near to the Outer Right Road which will not fulfill the aim and object 10 of formation of the Regional Ring Road. The respondent No.4 being the competent authority while considering the objections has categorically observed that the present alignment of the project was approved in December, 2021 after detailed deliberations and discussions on various alternative arrangements and while fixing the alignments, considered the optimal and feasible alignment option and due care was taken to avoid the existing habitats/settlements/ water bodies, religious structures and keeping in view the above objects, the State expressed its inability to change the alignment as desired by the petitioners herein. As per Section 3D of the Act, a discretion is conferred on the competent authority either to allow or disallow the objections. Admittedly, the respondent No.4 has considered the objections of the petitioners and disallowed the claims of the petitioners while giving reasons vide proceedings No.B1/711/2022 dated 13.03.2023. The plea of the petitioners that the alignment of the proposed formation of Expressway was manipulated to suit the vested interest lacks substance and merits rejection. The petitioners except making a bald assertion neither given any particulars of assertion sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie come to conclusion that exclusion of the villages notified in the preliminary notification from the final notification is actuated by malafides. It is settled law that in the absence of proper pleadings and material, this Court cannot make a 11 roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a conclusion that the decision of exclusion of certain villages is hit by the action of malafides and it is not in the public interest.
12. A similar question of this nature was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Girias Investment Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 5. In that case, the acquisition of the land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was challenged on various grounds including the one that the acquisition was vitiated due to mala fides. While rejecting the plea of mala fides, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to various decisions i.e, S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India 6, State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh 7 and Collector (D.M.) v. Raja Ram Jaiswal 8 and observed as follows:
"14. It is obvious from a reading of the pleadings quoted above that only vague allegations of mala fides have been levelled and that too without any basis. There can be two ways by which a case of mala fides can be made out; one that the action which is impugned has been taken with the specific object of damaging the interest of the party and, secondly, such action is aimed at helping some party which results in damage to the party alleging mala fides. It would be seen that there is no allegation whatsoever in the pleadings that the case falls within the first category but an inference of mala fides has been sought to be drawn in the course of a vague pleading that the change had been made to help certain important persons who would have lost their land under the original acquisition. These allegations have been replied to in the paragraph quoted above and reveal that the land which had been denotified belonged to those who had absolutely no position or power. In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by Mr Dave have absolutely no bearing on the facts of the case."5
(2008) 7 SCC 53 6 (1979) 2 SCC 491 7 (1980) 2 SCC 471 8 (1985) 3 SCC 1 12
13. In Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty and others 9, relied upon by the respondents, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"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 subserve 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."
14. In M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 10, relied upon by the respondents, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"38. We have taken pains to set out the fact situation in some detail since a decision in this matter depends on the fact situation leading to the change of alignment of the Western Sector of the Outer Ring Road Project in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. From the site plans of the area submitted by the parties, it is clear that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in the first place. From the reports submitted by the various local authorities, it is, however, clear that in order to proceed according to the first 9 AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3210 10 (2010) 5 SCC 590 13 alignment, the respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which is not so as far as the second alignment is concerned.
40. There is no doubt that in the facts of this case the public interest will out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as, plot No. 300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23rd December, 2006. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, we are of the view that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road have to give way to the construction of the said road. However, while constructing the portion of the road affecting the plots in question, maximum care has to be taken by the concerned authorities to preserve as far as possible the water bodies over which the road is to be constructed.
43. Although, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the three appeals or to entertain the two writ petitions, we dispose of the same with a direction to the authorities to take all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies in the area are not unduly affected and are preserved to the maximum extent possible during the construction of the remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western Sector."
15. Admittedly, in the instant cases, the respondent No.1 has obtained reports from the Pollution Control Board, for proceeding with the Project. A public hearing was conducted on 28.12.2022 and the Report has been forwarded to the respondent No.1. The Expert Appraisal Committee has taken up detailed study of pros and cons of the implementation of the Project. The study reveals that within 10 Kms radius of the Project site, there is no protected area, eco- sensitive zone or eco-sensitive area, water bodies and there shall be no major impact on drainage system as sufficient number of structures will be constructed. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate changes considered the proposal based on the Report of Expert Appraisal Committee, Infrastructure, CRZ and other miscellaneous project and decided to grant terms of Reference for the 14 development of Greenfield Regional Expressway on the Northern side of Hyderabad. The respondents after conducting detailed study on traffic flow and duly considering the objections of the petitioners and other affected persons, approved the plan in consultation with the State Forest Department and prepared alignment with necessary structural elements. The petitioners except making bald allegations that certain villages from Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri, Choutuppal and Sangareddy Divisions have been excluded from the purview of acquisition have not placed any substantial evidence that the said action is intended to favour the vested interest. Since the object of formation of Greenfield Regional Expressway is for public purpose and as the petitioners failed to establish any mala fides on the part of respondents, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the notifications issued by the respondents. Therefore, these writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 03.10.2024 Note: Issue C.C by 04.10.2024 (b/o) SCS