Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Alla Sreenivasrao vs Union on 30 December, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
APHC010219472024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3208]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 11083/2024
Between:
1. ALLA SREENIVASRAO, S/O. KOTILINGAM, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. TINNALURI SEETHARAMAIAH,, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. ALLA GOPI,, S/O. ADHINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. RUDRAJADA HANUMANTHARAO,, S/O. SAIDHULU, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. PODILI KOTAIAH,, D/O. HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. YENIGALLA KOTESWARAO,, S/O. KANAKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. BOGARAPU VENKATANARAYANA,, S/O. ROSAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, F/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. YENIGALLA NARSIMHARAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
2
ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
9. KARANAM RAMARARO,, S/O. GOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
10. KANCHARLA SUBBARAO,, S/O. VENKATA KOTAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. GUNTAGARLAPADU VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUMJOINT COLLECTOR1, , LAND
ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU
DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2, GORLEDALATANNA
VEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL, PUNNAMITHOTA,
VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD, OPP
RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT
NARASARAOPET, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE
DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the
objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of
the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National
Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed
3
further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in
newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere
with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification
dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and
set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with
peaceful procession and enjoyment of petitioners land covered by Sy. Nos.
86/3, 86/4, 27/1,26/2, 27/2, 85/8, 85/1, 80/8, 81/1, 91/3, 81/7B, 90/7, 97/4,
97/3, 91/2, 96/2, 9/3, A3, AB4, and 85, of Guntagarlapadu Village,
Narsaraopet town and mandal Palnadu District which were notified in the 3 A
notification dated 23-02-2024 which Was published in the newspaper on 01-
03-2024Pending writ petition in this
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 10.05.2024 in
IA.No.1 of 2024 in WP.No.11083 of 2024 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.05.2024
passed in W.P. No. 11083 of 2024, and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the prayer as
follows:- it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to
issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus to declare the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was
published in the news paper on 01.03.2024 is as illegal arbitrary as it does
not contain the brief description of the land which is mandatory under Sub
4
Section 2 and 3 of National Highways Act, 1956, and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners lands in
pursuance of the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the
newspaper dt.01.03.2024 by setting aside the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024
and as well as the proceedings R.C.No.698/2022-G1 dt.24.04.2024 issued
by the 2nd respondent pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
4. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
5. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
6. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)
5
WRIT PETITION NO: 11086/2024
Between:
1. BANDLAMURI CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT
49 YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. BANDLAMURI SEETHAMMA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68
YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. CHEREDDY SIVARANI, W/O. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUMJOINT COLLECTORI, LAND
ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU
DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS (MORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2,
GORLEDALATANNAVEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL,
PUNNAMITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD,
OPP RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT
NARASARAOPET, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE
DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
6
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting
the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-Aof
the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National
Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed
further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in
newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere
with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification
dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and
set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with
peaceful procession and enjoyment of petitioners land covered by Sy. Nos.
4M, 55/A, 55/B, 47/B1, 55/A1, 61/C1, 55/A1 and 61/C of Issappapalem
Village, Narsaraopet town and mandal Palnadu District which were notified
in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the
newspaper on 01-03-2024Pending writ petition in this Hon'ble Courtand pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 10.05.2024 in IA.No.1 of
2024 in WP.No.11086 of 2024 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.05.2024 passed in
W.P. No. 11086 of 2024, and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
7
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the 3-A notification
dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the news paper on 01.03.2024 is as
illegal arbitrary as it does not contain the brief description of the land which
is mandatory under Sub Section 2 and 3 of National Highways Act, 1956,
and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the
possession of the petitioners lands in pursuance of the 3-A notification
dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the newspaper dt.01.03.2024 by
setting aside the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 and as well as the
proceedings R.C.No.698/2022-G1 dt.24.04.2024 issued by the 2nd a
respondent pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
3. GP FOR REVENUE
4. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
5. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)
8
WRIT PETITION NO: 11090/2024
Between:
1. M.PETER RAJU, S/O. PEDDA SOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. B. NUTHANA MARY PREMEELA RANI,, W/O. M. PETER RAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. M. SUNDAR RAO,, S/O. PEDDA SOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
4. P. ANNA MARY,, D/O. M. SUNDAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. M. PRAKASH RAO,, S/O. PEDDA SOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
6. N. ANTHONI NIRMALA MARY,, W/O. M. PRAKASH RAO, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. L. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. S. VEERA LAKSHMI, , W/O. S. SAMBA SIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, R/O. KESANUPALLI VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUMJOINT COLLECTORI, LAND
ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU
DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
9
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2,
GORLEDALATANNAVEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL,
PUNNAMITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD,
OPP RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT
NARASARAOPET, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE
DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the
objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24-
04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways
Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on
the 3A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on
01-03-2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the
possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-
02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and set-
aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful
procession and enjoyment of petitioners land covered by Sy. Nos. 501E, 46-
ID, 46-1E, 46-1G, 46-1E, 46-ID, 46-1E, 46-1G, 49-ID, 46-1G, 46-1F, 48-
A1B, 48-A1B2,48-A2B2, 45-1C, 45-ID, 46-1B, 46-1E, 61-B2, 61-A3, 255-1,
255-2, 255-3, 255-7 and 255-8, of Kesanupalli Village, Narsaraopet town
10
and mandal Palnadu District which were notified in the 3 A notification dated
23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024Pending
writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 10.05.2024 in
IA.No.1 of 2024 in WP.No. 11090 of 2024 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.05.2024 passed in
W.P. No. 11090 of 2024, and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the 3-A notification
dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the news paper on 01.03.2024 is as
illegal arbitrary as it does not contain the brief description of the land which
is mandatory under Sub Section 2 and 3 of National Highways Act, 1956,
and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession
of the petitioners lands in pursuance of the 3-A notification dt:23.02.2024
which was published in the newspaper dt.01.03.2024 by setting aside the 3-
A notification dt.23.02.2024 and as well as the proceedings
R.C.No.698/2022-G1 dt.24.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)
4. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP)
5. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)
11
WRIT PETITION NO: 11092/2024
Between:
1. YADDANAPALLI ANIL PRATAP, , S/O. JOJAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. POODOTA MERI VENILA, , W/O. PRAKASH BABU, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. NAGOTHUINNAYYA,, S/O. SOWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. NETTEMSWORI RANI,, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
5. DOUPATI RENUKA,, D/O. INNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. DOUPATI INNAYYA,, S/O. PRAKASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. YADDANAPALLI RAJESH KUMAR,, S/O. MALKIRAJU, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. YADDANAPALLI SUDHEER KUMAR,, S/O. MALKIRAJU, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
9. SINGAMANENI VENKATA CHALAPATHI RAO,, S/O.
VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU
VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
10. VELUGOTI RENUKA,, W/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
11. PATI SAMRAJYAM,, W/O. PEDDHAKOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
12
12. DOUPATI SUSEELA, , W/O. KIRAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
.
13. YAMPARALASREENIVASARAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU. AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
14. M.NARRA AROGYA RAJU, , S/O. INNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT
15. NARRA AROGYA RAJU,, S/O. INNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
16. REDDYMASU BALA SOWRAYYA,, S/O. SANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT
71 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
17. REDDYMASU GOERGE PAPARAO, S/O. BALA SOURAIAH AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
18. KANYADARA RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O. GOVA SOURAIAH AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
19. PULUKURI NAGESWAR RAO, S/O. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT
56 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
20. BODDAPATIADHILAKSHMI, W/O. BIKSHALU RAO, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
21. MALLAVARAPU KIRAN CHANDRABOSE, S/O. INNAYYA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
22. KANYADARA BALA,, S/O. JOJAYYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
13
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
23. KANYADARA MANASA,, W/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
24. YADDANAPALLI JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR,, S/O. BALASOURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
25. MALLAVARAPU PRAMEELA, W/O. BOSE, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
26. GAALI MARIYADASU,, S/O. ANTHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
27. MAADENENI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
28. POODOTA BALA JOYTHI,, W/O. SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
29. NADENDLA SREENIVASRAO,, S/O. VENKAESWARLU. AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
30. NIDAMANURI JOSEPH VENKATADAMBAIAH, S/O.
VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU
VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUMJOINT COLLECTOR1, LAND
ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU
DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2,
14
GORLEDALATANNAVEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL,
PUNNAMITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD,
OPP RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT
NARASARAOPET, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE
DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ or order Direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the
objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24-
04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-Aof the
Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National
Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed
further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in
newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere
with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification
dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and
set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated
24-04-2024 and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with
peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners land covered by Sy. Nos.
125-A1A1, 496-C, 492-2R, 507-4C1, 17-3A, 17-3C, 517-53B1A-1, 17-1C1,
17-3C, 125-A1A-1, 125-A1A-2, 14- A3, 14-B1, 492-2-U, 1-9-C4, 13-El, 517-
53-B1A1, 26-A1, 26-A2, 17-3c. 17- 1A, 17-3C2, 17-3C-1, 118-1D3, 36-H,
494-1A1A, 494-2A, 494-2A-1, 17/3C, 118-1D3, 125-A1A2, 507-4C3-D, 507-
4C1, 507-4C3, 124-A1A, 124-A3A, 124-A3C, 127/A, 36-C-1 and 517-54C1,
of Ravipadu Village, Narsaraopet town and mandal Palnadu District which
15
were notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in
the newspaper on 01-03- 2024Pending writ petition in this Hon'ble Courtand
pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 10.05.2024 in IA.No.1 of
2024 in WP.No.11092 of 2024 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.05.2024
passed in W.P. No. 11092 of 2024, and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the prayer as
follows:- it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to
issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus to declare the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was
published in the news paper on 01.03.2024 is as illegal arbitrary as it does
not contain the brief description of the land which is mandatory under Sub
Section 2 and 3 of National Highways Act, 1956, and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners lands in
pursuance of the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the
newspaper dt.01.03.2024 by setting aside the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024
and as well as the proceedings R.C.No.698/2022-G1 dt.24.04.2024 issued
by the 2nd respondent pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
3. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
4. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS (AP)
5. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)
16
WRIT PETITION NO: 11095/2024
Between:
1. NALLAPATI SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. KRISHNAYYA AGED
ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPETTOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. NALLAPATI THIRUPATHAIAH,, S/O. KOTESWARUDU, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. NALLAPATI RAMA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. KATIA SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. CHENNAKESAVULU, AGED
ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPETTOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. YARRAM VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. TIRUPATHAYYA, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPETTOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. NADIPINENI APPAYYA,, S/O. BRHAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPETTOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
7. UPPUTURI APPAYYA,, S/O. VENKATRAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPETTOWN
AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
8. VANKAYALAPATI BHRAMAYYA, , S/O. VENKATAPPAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
9. KORITAFA NAGABHUSHAN RAO,, S/O. ANJENEYULU, AGED
ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
10. NALLAPATI RAMADEVI,, S/O. RAJASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
17
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
11. NALLAPATIKOTAMMA,, S/O. ANJEYULU, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET
TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
12. NALLAPATI CHANDRIKA,, . W/O. PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT
13. BAPATHU PRABHAKAR REDDY,, S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE,
NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
14. KOPPURAVURIVENKATARAMAKRISHNARAO,, S/O.
VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.
JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND
MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM JOINT COLLECTOR1, LAND
ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU
DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2
GORLEDALATANNAVEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL,
PUNNAMITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD,
OPP- RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT
NARASARAOPET ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
18
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE
DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU
DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ, or order or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in
rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-
G1 dated 24.4.2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of
National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to
proceed further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was
published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents
not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3
A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on
01-03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No.
698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with
peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners land covered by Sy. Nos.
251A1, 251B1 A, 150-3D, 149AC3-C, 149AC3-D, 149AC3, 149B3, 141-3D,
141-B1, 151-B3, 150-301, 141-BA3A, 141BB2. 152B2A1, 152C3A, 139-3,
176-A1, 166-B3, 146-AB1, 149-B1A, 150-3A, 149-AC3B, 149-AB2, 149-
AC3E, 162/A3C, 162/B, 154-Aand 154- B of Jonnalaadda Village,
Narsaraopet town and mandai Palnadu District which were notified in the 3 A
notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-
03-2024Pending writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 10.05.2024 in IA.No.1 of
2024 in WP.No.11095 of 2024 and pass
19
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.05.2024
passed in W.P. No. 11095 of 2024, and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the prayer as
follows:- it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to
issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus to declare the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was
published in the news paper on 01.03.2024 is as illegal arbitrary as it does
not contain the brief description of the land which is mandatory under Sub
Section 2 and 3 of National Highways Act, 1956, and consequently direct the
respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners lands in
pursuance of the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024 which was published in the
newspaper dt.01.03.2024 by setting aside the 3-A notification dt.23.02.2024
and as well as the proceedings R.C.No.698/2022-G1 dt.24.04.2024 issued
by the 2 nd respondent pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
4. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
5. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)
The Court made the following:
20
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.11083 of 2024:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc. No. 698/2022- G1 dated 24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass such...."
W.P.No.11086 of 2024:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 21 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass...."
W.P.No.11090 of 2024:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on the 3A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01- 03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass...."
W.P.No.11092 of 2024:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the 22 newspaper on 01-03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass such...."
W.P.No.11095 of 2024:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the objections of the petitioners vide proceedings Rc.No.698/2022-G1 dated 24.4.2024 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to section 3 c (2) of National Highways Act 1956 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed further on the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in newspaper on 01-03- 2024 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners land as notified in the 3 A notification dated 23-02-2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01- 03-2024 and set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Rc. No. 698/2022-G1 dated 24-04-2024 and pass...."
As the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same, hence all the Writ Petitions are being disposed of with a common order by taking W.P.No.11095 of 2024 as a leading case.
2. Heard Mr. S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Spl. Govt. Pleader and learned standing counsel for National Highways Authority of India.
3. At first instance, respondent no.2 has issued a notification on 28.10.2022 and the same was published in newspapers dated 23 04.11.2022 wherein it was proposed for acquisition of land in Sy.Nos. 251A1, 251B1A, 150-3D, 149AC3-C, 149AC3-D, 149AC3, 149B3, 141- 3D, 141-B1, 151-B3, 150-3C1, 141-ВАЗА, 141BB2, 152B2A1, 152C3A, 139-3, 176-A1, 166-B3, 146-AB1, 149-B1A, 150-3A, 149- AC3B, 149-AB2, 149-AC3E, 162/A3C, 162/B, 154-A and 154-B for formation of National Highway No.167-A (Construction /Widening/Paved/Shoulder/2 Lane/4 Lane, Maintenance, Management and operation from Km.35.200 to Km.81.690 in Palnadu District of Andhra Pradesh State. In the said notification, respondent no.2 has called for objections within 21 days from the said notification. Pursuant to the said 3-A notification, the petitioners have submitted objections by way of representation dated 16-11-2022 opposing the construction of the road through the lands of the petitioners as it was proposed without inspection and enquiry. Further the classification of the lands is fertile and double crop wet lands under the irrigation source of right canal of Nargarjunasagar project and the only source of our livelihood. Further it was also brought to the notice of the authorities that the lands were close to Narsaraopeta Town and within the Narsaraopeta Municipal Limits and they have much potentiality for house sites with market value from 3 to 5 crore rupees for acre in the open market and there are certain commercial buildings and residential houses situated in the midst of the lands.
24
4. Pursuant to the objections, the District Collector, Palnadu District has conducted stake holders meeting on 18-07-2023. In the said meeting, it was agreed to change the existing alignment outside the municipal limits as well as master plan limits of Narsaraopet Municipality and also to consider suitability of options 2 and 3 as per technical feasibility as proposed by National Highway authorities. According to the stake holders meeting, the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the authorities would change the alignment. But surprisingly, respondent no.2 had issued the second notification u/Sec.3-A(1) dated 23.02.2024 which was published in the newspaper on 01-03-2024. The said notification u/Sec.3-A(1) was issued as the notification dated 28.10.2022 got lapsed.
5. Further the petitioners have also submitted their objections on 14.3.2024 opposing the proposal road for widening as the said notification is contrary to the agreed change of road alignment in the stake holders meeting conducted by the District Collector on 18.7.2023. Along with the present objections, the petitioners have also brought to the notice of the authorities about the objections filed on 16.3.2023 and also the minutes of the meeting dated 18.7.2023.
6. In fact, the petitioners have also specifically contended in their objections dated 14.3.2024 that the notification u/Sec.3 (A) was 25 published does not contain survey numbers which is mandatory and accordingly, the same is violation of Section.3-A(2) of the Act. National Highways Act 1956 clearly speaks that every notification under sub- section 1 of Section 3 shall give a brief description of the land. But in the instant case, the respondents have not given any description of the lands of the petitioners and thereby they have failed to follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under sub-section 2 of section 3-A of the Act. The said ground itself is sufficient to set aside the 3-A notification dated 23.02.2024. They have further averred that after came to know and verifying the QR code as mentioned in the 3-A notification wherein lands in survey numbers of the petitioners and extent of the land which was proposed for road construction were mentioned. It is also stated that a notice was issued on 01.4.2024 to attend enquiry. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have attended enquiry before respondent no.2 on 06.4.2024 and explained their objections including the decision taken in the stake holders meeting which was held on 18.3.2023. But the respondent no.2 did not consider the objections properly and refused to take their written submissions. Respondent no.2 without considering the objections dated 14.3.2024 and the written representation dated 06.4.2024 has rejected their objections erroneously through proceedings dated 24.4.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 26
7. Refuting the said averments, respondent no.4 the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, National Highways Division has filed counter. The Union of India has sanctioned the package-I work widening of four lane with paved shoulder configuration of Vodarevu- Chilakaluripet Section in the State of Andhra Pradesh by sanctioning an amount of Rs.1064.24 crores and the further package-II work of four laning of Chilakaluripet-Nekarikallu Section of NH-167A (Package-II) for Rs.787.38 crores vide orders dated 27.3.2023.
8. Respondent no.1 the Union of India has accepted the bidding of the M/s Dhruv Consultancy Services Limited JV with Global Infra Solutions associate with Kaius Consulting Pvt.Ltd., (herein after referred as "the consultant"). Accordingly, the responsibility of the consultant includes Project Preparation, Pre-construction activities, Survey & Investigation under Phase 1 & 2 and Construction Supervision and maintenance under Phase-3. The consultant has proposed the alignment as (Brown+Green) Field i.e.. (Existing + New), proposed Bypasses and realignments at Built-up areas and following existing alignment for the remaining stretches. Accordingly, the alignment was approved by the competent authority in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and there after respondent no.3 issued letter dated 25.7.2022 and the entire project was divided into two packages, namely Package-1 and Package-II. Further, the 27 Government of India has declared that the Joint Collector, Bapatia as competent authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) through Gazette dated 30.8.2022 and further the Joint Collector, Palnadu was competent authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) through Gazette dated 30.8.2022 for the project stretch falling in Palnadu District from Km 35.200 to 85.080. Basing on the above, 3A Gazette Notification was issued for Palnadu District dated 28.10.2022 and the same was published on 04.11.2022 in daily News Papers i.e., The Hindu & Andhra Prabha. The Consultant for package -II has give three options which are as under.
Option-1: This option follows the existing road with geometric improvements in Narsaraopeta Town. Length proposed is 18.900 Km. This proposal involves acquisition of lot of Built up area.
Option-II: This option is a combination of (Brown +Green) field alignment on Right side of the Narasaraopeta Town i.e. towards Guntur side. Length of bypass proposed is 20.00 Km. In which existing 5.300Km falls in existing Highway and 14.700 Km is Green Field. This proposal involves meagre acquisition of Built up area.
Option-III: This option is a Greenfield alignment on Left side of Narasaraopeta Town je towards Vinukonda side. Length of bypass proposed is 22.570 Km. Which is entirely Green field Highway.
9. The Consultant has conducted meticulous survey and determined the best alignment by taking into consideration of key aspects in geometric design like design speed, sight distance, design traffic, etc., keeping in view of overall public safety, technical feasibility and economic viability. Accordingly, after considering all aspects, the consultant has recommended Option-II. Accordingly, the Ministry has 28 approved the overall alignment. After approval of alignment, the objections were received from the land owners and accordingly addressed a letter to the Union of India requesting to consider alignment option-III in respect of Narasaraopeta Bypass accordingly. In view of the above letter and objections, respondent no.1 has constituted a three member committee with Sri. Sanjeev Kumar, Director, IAHE-Chairman, Sri L.Behra, Ro, MORTH, Vijayawada- Member and Sri Narendra Sharma, Ro MORTH, Bengaluru-Member to look into the grievances and feasibility of change of alignment. Accordingly, they visited the site and studied the alternative alignment in consultation with the State (R&B) NH officials as well as consultants and concluded that the approved alignment option II have merit over the other alternative alignment options. They have finalized the same.
10. It is also stated that the District Collector, Palnadu has conducted the meeting with all the stake holders in pursuant to the above letter on 18.7.2023 and forwarded the minutes of meeting to the Chief Engineer (R&B) NH& CRF on 22.7.2023. As respondent no.1 has considered the objections as well as the proposals sent and minutes of meeting dated 22.7.2023, respondent no.1 has concluded that the approved option-2 is feasible and technically and financially merit over the other two options vide its letter dated 21.12.2023.
29
11. Considering the above said merits, initial notification issued under Section 3-A dated 28.10.2022 has got lapsed by 27.10.2023. hence the present notification under Section 3-A was issued on 23.02.2024 and the same was published in Telugu language daily news paper "Andhra Praba" dated 01.3.2024 and in English language daily newspaper "The Hindu" dated 01.3.2024. In the said 3A Notification the particulars of the lands were incorporated by way of QR code (quick response code). The said notification was issued basing on the guidelines issued by respondent no.1 vide R.C.No 11011/71/2022-LA dt:23.10.2023. By way of said QR code the particulars of the villages, survey numbers where lands to be acquired were mentioned and the structure of the road to be constructed and the plans and other particulars are available with the Office of the CALA (Competent Authority of Land Acquisition). As such there is no violation in providing description of lands under section 3A(2) of National highway act 1956. Further stating that pursuant to the above said notification, the respondents have received objections from the petitioners and 19 others under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956. After completion of 21 days, notices were issued to all the persons who raised objections, through Tahsildar's concerned to hear the grievances, there after conducted public meeting on 06.4.2024 at Narsaraopeta Collectorate. Accordingly, hearing was taken place along 30 with the petitioners, respondent no.2 has opined that the up gradation of Road is necessary and objections will be dealt in accordance with the laws and issued proceedings on 24.4.2024.
12. Respondent no.2 Competent Authority Land Acquisition (hereinafter to be referred as CALA) has also filed counter and vacate stay petition. As per interim directions granted by this Court on 10.5.2024, directed not to pass any final award, however, other proceedings shall go on. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings under the Act were continued. They have also mentioned about the project package-I and package-II, but it is stated that as far as package-I widening of 4-lane in the State of Andhra Pradesh was already commenced and 92.38%of work has been completed. As far as package-II pertaining to the present litigation work is yet to be entrusted to the contractor and the land acquisition process was stalled at the 3G(3) enquiry stage and passing of award was kept pending as per the orders of this Court. In view of the lapse of earlier notification dated 28.10.2022, the present notification was issued in Daily news papers on 01.3.2024 giving details of the land proposed to be acquired with survey numbers under Section 3-A(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the formation of NH 167A. Objections were invited within 21 days from the date of publication. In addition to the publication in daily newspaper, the 3A Gazette notification with survey numbers and 31 extents were widely published in all Grama Panchayats and Mandal Officers. In response to the above said notification, a total of 17 objections were received under Section 3C of the Act, out of which one objection pertains to Jonnalagadda. The CALA and the Joint Collector, Palnadu conducted an enquiry on 06.4.2024 for which the petitioners were attended and the petitioners objections were considered and discussed.
Objection No.1: The CALA issued a 3A notification containing only a QR Code without individual survey details.
Reply: The petitioners were informed that, as per the orders of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) vide Rc. No. 11011/71/2022-L.A dated 23.10.2023, the 3A Notification was issued in the template prescribed by MoRTH. Accordingly, the 3А Notification in Telugu was published in Andhra Prabha and the English version in The Hindu on 01.03.2024 in the form of a QR Code. In addition to the publication in newspapers, the 3A Gazette Notification with survey numbers and extents was widely publicized in all Grama Panchayats and Mandal Offices. Hence, the CALA had followed the instructions of the Government of India (MORTH) in publishing the 3A Notification.
Objection No. 2: The petitioners requested to change the alignment outside the newly proposed Narasaraopet Municipal limits.
Reply: The petitioners were informed that, as per the orders of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, a stakeholders' meeting was conducted in the presence of the District Collector, Palnadu, on 18.07.2023, to discuss the alignment of NH-167A. The recommendations of the stakeholders' meeting were submitted to the Government of India through MoRTH. The Government of India 32 clarified that the originally approved alignment dated 25.07.2022 cannot be altered and instructed to continue with the land acquisition process. Meanwhile, the earlier 3A Notification had lapsed and was reissued vide S.O. No. 886(E) dated 23.02.2024 and published on 01.03.2024.
13. Hence in view of the above orders passed u/Sec.3C in full compliance to the provisions of the Act and requested to vacate the interim orders and dismiss the Writ Petition.
14. The petitioners have filed their reply to the counters filed by the respondents wherein the petitioners have stated that the action of respondent no.2 in rejecting the objections vide proceedings dated 24.4.4024 as it was contrary to Section 3-C(2) of NHAI Act 1956 as respondent no.2 did not assign any reason while rejecting the objections though he was required to record reasons while considering the objections as held by the Apex Court. Further they have also denied that the Section 3-A gazette notification with survey numbers and extents were widely published in all grama panchayats and Mandal officers which are factually incorrect and further stated that even if it is published in all grama panchayats it is not permissible under law. As there is a specific pleading in the Writ Petition that as per sub-section 2 of Section 3 of NHAI Act clearly speaks that every notification under sub-section 1 shall give a brief description of the land which is mandatory and as such the section 3A notification dated 24.4.2024 is 33 defective one and is liable to be set aside. Further as stated in the counter that Section 3A notification Telugu and English was published on 01.3.2024 in the form of QR Code is not in the procedure as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 3A of the Act.
15. Basing on the above averments, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly placed his submissions on two grounds that the paper notification issued on 01.3.2024 does not contain the brief description of the properties/land which mandated under Section 3A(2) of the Act. To support his contention learned counsel has relied on the notification issued under Section 3A(3) in the newspapers on 23.02.2024 and has stated that instead of giving the brief description of the properties, the authorities have provided only QR code which does not contain any particulars. Hence the notification issued under Section 3A(3) is contrary to the specific procedure contemplated under the Act. In the instant case, when a specific format is prescribed under the Act but the respondents failed to issue the notification as mandated in the act. When there is a specific mandate under Section 3A(2) of the Act which clearly speaks that every notification under sub-section 2 should contain a brief description of the property/land. Here, on verification of the notification published on 23.02.2024 does not contain the description of the property and only inserted QR code. Hence the said 34 notification is said to be declared as contrary to the provisions of the Act. More specifically Section 3A(2).
16. On several grounds he contended that the impugned proceedings dated 24.4.2024 is also contrary to Section 3C(2) of the Act. Though the petitioners have specifically submitted their objections on 14.3.2024 opposing the proposal for road widening for change of alignment, the petitioners have submitted their objections on 16.11.2022 to the first notification and also basing on the said objections, the stake holders meeting was taken place on 18.7.2023 and accordingly, respondent no.5 has agreed for change of alignment in the minutes of meeting on 18.7.2023. Accordingly the petitioners specifically submitted their objections on 14.3.2024 and also requested to consider their objections basing on the minutes of the meeting dated 18.7.2023. But surprisingly, the respondents have not given any finding with regard to the objections filed by the petitioners. Hence the said action of the respondents is contrary and mandate given under Section 3C(2).
17. Though in the objections filed by the petitioners and also the averments made in the Writ Petitions with regard to two grounds, one is not mentioning the brief description of the lands under the notification issued under Section 3A(2) and secondly not considering the minutes 35 of the meeting dated 18.7.2023 for change of alignment. But the learned counsel has not made any submissions with regard to second ground i.e. change of alignment. He stressed his arguments only on the ground that non-fulfillment of the conditions stipulated under Section 3A(2) of the Act.
18. To support his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reported in between Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy vs. Union Government of India, Department of Shipping Roads, Transports & Highways, represented by the Secretary and others1 In the case on hand, violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 3 - C(2) by the 4th respondent, in failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (despite the mandate of Section 3 - C(2) and the specific request of the petitioner in this behalf vide his memorandum of objections dated 27-11- 2008 and 04-01-2010), is established. On account of this illegality, all the proceedings subsequent to the stage under Section 3 - C(1) are void and inoperative and the fact of publication of a declaration under Section 3 - D(1) would not cure that fatal infirmity.
Affording of opportunity to persons whose lands are proposed for acquisition under the 1956 Act, mandated by Section 3 - C(1) is neither a ritual nor an empty formality. It is a salutary provision akin to the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In Union of India v. Mukesh Hans1; Union of India v. Krishan Lal 1 2012 (6) ALT 651 (D.B) 36 Arneja2; Mahender Pal and ors. v. State of Haryana and ors.3; Anand Singh v. State of U.P.4; Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P.5; and in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar and others6, the Supreme Court observed that the opportunity of hearing to the land owners to object to acquisition of their lands is a valuable right which cannot be jettisoned for jejune reasons and that such opportunity and compliance with rules of natural justice is a small price which the State should always be prepared to pay before it can deprive any person of his property. These observations of the apex court made in the context of the Land Acquisition Act apply to the present acquisition a fortiori.
In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh7 , and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another8 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 under Section 3 - C(2) of the Act.
In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in between S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India 2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
2
1990 LawSuit (SC) 446 37 "Having considered the rationale for the requirement to record the reasons for the decision of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions we may now examine the legal basis for imposing this obligation. While considering this aspect the Donough more Committee observed that it may well be argued that there is a third principle of natural justice, namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judi- cial. The committee expressed the opinion that "there are some cases where the refusal to give grounds for a decision may be plainly unfair; and this may be so, even when the decision is final and no further proceedings are open to the disappointed party by way of appeal or otherwise" and that "where further proceedings are open to a disappointed party, it is contrary to natural justice that the silence of the Minister or the Ministerial Tribunal should deprive them of the opportunity." (P 80) Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also ex- pressed the view that "natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice." (See Wade, Administra- tive Law, 6th Edn. P. 548). In Siemens Engineering Co. case (Supra) this Court has taken the same view when it observed that "the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principles of audi alteram parlem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process." This decision proceeds on the basis that the two well-known principles of natural justice, namely (i) that no man should be a Judge in his own cause and (ii) that no person should be judged without a hearing, are not exhaustive and that in addition to these two principles there may be rules which seek to ensure fairness in the process of decision-making and can be regarded as part of the principles of natural justice. This view is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1970] 1 SCR 457, wherein it has been held:38
"The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (i) no one shall be a Judge in his own cause (nemo dabet esse judex propria causa) and (ii) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice." (P. 468-69) A similar trend is discernible m the decisions of English Courts wherein it has been held that natural justice demands that the decision should be based on some evidence of probative value. (See: R. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex P. Moore, [1965] 1 Q.B. 456; Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd., [1984] A.C.
648. In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in between J & K Housing Board and another vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others 3 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:
Though all the above decisions arose under the Central Act, it is not in dispute that similar provisions have been incorporated in the State Act. We have already extracted Sections 4, 5, 5-A and 6 of the State Act which are similar to the provisions of the Central Act. From the materials placed before us, we are satisfied that the conditions prescribed in Section 4(1)(a) and (b) had been complied with except Section 4(1)(c) which have not been followed. In the light of the language used in Section 4(1), namely, "the Collector shall notify it", the procedures/directions provided in Section 4(1)(a)(b) and (c) ought 3 (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 714 39 to be strictly complied with. There is no option left with anyone to give up or waive any of the mode and all such modes have to be strictly resorted to. It is settled law that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in the Act. Merely because the parties concerned were aware of the acquisition proceedings or served with individual notices does not make the position alter when the statute makes it very clear that all the procedures/modes have to be strictly complied with in the manner provided therein. Merely because the land owners failed to submit their objections within 15 days after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act, the authorities cannot be permitted to claim that it need not be strictly resorted to.
Basing on the above judgments, it is quite clear that the respondents ought to have considered the objections filed by the petitioners and has to be passed a reasoned order. But in the instant case, the respondents have mistakenly rejected the objections of the petitioners without mentioning any reasons.
19. Reply to the said contentions, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 has made his submissions basing on the averments made in the counters filed by respondent nos.2 and 4. Firstly, he made his submissions with regard to the provisions of the Act. He specifically emphasized his arguments basing on the provisions of Section 3A(1) of the Act. For the better appreciation, the same is extracted below.
40
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.
3B. Power to enter for survey, etc.--
On the issue of a notification under sub-section(1)of section 3A, it shall be lawful for any person, authorized by the Central Government in this behalf, to--
(a)make any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation or enquiry;
(b)take levels;
(c)dig or bore into sub-soil;
(d)set out boundaries and intended lines of work;
(e)mark such levels, boundaries and lines placing marks and cutting trenches; or
(f)do such other acts or things as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government.
3C. Hearing of objections.--
(1)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.41
(2)Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961).
(3)Any order made by the competent authority under sub-
section (2) shall be final.
According to the above provisions of Section 3A(1) of the Act has to issue notification in the official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. Where under, the Central Government while issuing the notification under Gazette it has to declare full brief particulars of the land. Accordingly, in the instant case, the Gazette issued by the Union of India contains all particulars. Further as per Section 3A(2), the notification under sub-section 1 shall give a brief description of the land. So section 3A(2) is to be issued under section 3A(1). Further while complying section 3A(3) of the Act, the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two daily newspapers. The language used in Section 3A(3) is to publish a notification in two newspapers of substance of the Gazette notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act. Here learned 42 Special Government Pleader has relied on the definition of the 'substance' in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY which reads as follows:
Substance. 1. The essence of something; the essential quality of something, as opposed to its mere form. 2. Any matter, esp. an addictive drug.
According to the above, the requirement under Section 3A(3) is only a notification of the substance of the Gazette. According to the complex letter dictionary substance is nothing but the essence of something. According to the above definition, the authorities have complied the notification by providing QR code.
20. To support the above contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader has placed reliance on the material filed by respondent no.2. In the material placed along with the counter, clearly discloses the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide notification dated 23.02.2022 issued under sub-section 1 of Section 3A schedule contains brief description of the land to be acquired has notified. Further he also placed reliance on the instructions issued by respondent no.1 on 23.10.2023 which contains the publication of templates for 3A and 3D notification to be published in News under the National Highways Act, 1956. The said instructions were issued in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and prepare the templates for notification for land acquisition for National Highway 43 under 3A and 3D of the Act and accordingly as per sub-section 3 of Section 3A of the Act, the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers as per the templates attached to the letter. According to the web-link of the e-gazette and also provision of QR code will be made in bhoomi- raasi portal. And the authorities have issued notification under section 3A(3) based on the templates provided by respondent no.1 vide its instructions dated 23.10.2023. As per the above instructions, in throughout India more than 1000 notifications were issued and accordingly they have concluded by passing 3G award also.
21. As far as the alignment is concerned, in the counter filed by respondent no.4 has clearly mentioned initially as per the options given by the consultant, though the consultant has given three options but he made recommendation for 2nd option and subsequently basing on the objections raised by the petitioners, a three member committee was constituted and as per the report submitted by the three member committee on 29.3.2023, again a meeting with stakeholders was conducted by the District Collector, Palnadu District on 18.7.2023 and the report as well as the minutes of the meeting were referred to respondent no.1 and after verifying the entire material, respondent no.1 has approved option-2. In fact the authorities have considered the objections received from petitioners and 19 others under Section 3C of 44 the Act and a hearing of the grievances were conducted on 06.4.2024 at Narsaraopeta Collectorate and after considering the objections filed by all the persons including the petitioners in accordance with law and issued proceedings on 24.4.2024 rejecting the change of alignment in view of the approval/decision taken by respondent no.1. While considering the objections, the authority has also considered that as already Section 3D Gazette was issued on 13.02.2025, hence once Section 3D Gazette is issued automatically the land vests with the Central Government. Hence the question of change of the alignment would not arise. Further, the respondents, while considering the objections under Section 3C(2) also considered the technical and financial feasibility and also the decision taken by respondent no.1. Accordingly, the same was rejected.
22. Further learned Special Government Pleader has emphasized his arguments that, the petitioners conceded in paragraph no.5 of their Writ Petition that after Section 3A notification, the petitioners have verified the QR their survey numbers and extent of land proposed for road constructions were also identified. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have filed their objections and also opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. Hence in the said circumstances, the question of setting aside the notification issued under Section 3A(3) would not arise.
45
23. The contention of the petitioners is that the notification does not contain the brief description of the properties and in lack of description of the properties, if the petitioners are unable to know the notification and not able to file their objections, the question of brief description would arise. But in the instant case, as per the averments made in the Writ Petition, it clearly discloses that the petitioners have verified the QR code and came to know their properties which are proposed to be acquired in the said notification and accordingly, they have submitted their objections. Hence the contention of the petitioners is far from the truth.
24. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not at all applicable to this case. In fact, said judgments are with regard to procedure to be followed while considering the objections under Section 3C akin to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case, respondents have fully complied the procedure contemplated under Section 3C. In fact, they have received all the objections of the petitioners and 19 more objections and after completing 21 days prescribed in the Act, they have issued notices and they have also conducted hearing. Hence the question of violation of principles of natural justice or procedure contemplated under the Act would not arise. As far as the decision relied on by the petitioners in J 46 & K Housing Board and another vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul and others referred to supra is also not applicable wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therein. In the instant case also the authorities have strictly issued notification in compliance with the provisions of the Act more specifically Section 3A(1) and 3A(3) of the Act. Initially, respondent no.1 has considered and issued Gazette on 23.02.2024 and the said notification with schedule and provided brief description of the lands to be acquired. Further the respondents have also fully complied Section 3A(3) of the Act by providing substance of the notification published in two local newspapers.
25. Further learned Special Government Pleader has also made his submissions that as far as package-II is concerned, the Union of India has already sanctioned Rs.787.38 crores as the project is aimed for the sake of public and as per the interim directions of this Court, the authorities have already completed the entire procedure and only award under Section 3G has to be passed.
47
26. Learned Special Government Pleader has relied on the judgments extracted in the counter filed by respondent no.4 at paragraph nos.21, 22 and 23 which reads as follows:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. Kushala Setty held that:
"The projects involving construction of new Highways, widening and the development of existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to the 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 Nation 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 a 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 the 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 malafides."
In view of the above Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that court could nullify the acquisition of lands in rarest of the rare cases only. In the present case in hand in spite of continuous objections requesting to change the alignment, the government stick on to the initially approved alignment which is technically and financially feasible and decided best for the project. Hence, there is no 48 malafides committed and it cannot be treated as rarest of the rare case for interference by this Hon'ble Court.
Further, The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in WP(PIL) No. 137/2016, by order dated: 01.11.2016 between Marella Marithi Prasada Rao Vs Union of India and Ors. (2016) observed as below:
"While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of 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."
Basing on the above judgments, it is very clear that the Courts are not equipped to decide upon the technicality and feasibility of a particular project and the alignment would sub-serve the larger public interest and in such matters the scope of judicial review is very limited. In the instant case, with regard to alignment, objections were considered and a three man committee was formed and as per the report of the three men committee and also the minutes of the meeting with the stakeholders, Union of India considered and based on the 49 technical availability and financial feasibility, has decided to go ahead with the present notification. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held, especially, in land acquisition matters only rarest of rare cases, the Court should interfere.
27. Further he has relied on the judgment of the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported in between Nirmala Rathore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors4 though it is not binding but for persuasive value, the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the observations made in the said matter which reads as follows:
"The purpose of giving brief description of the land in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act of 1956 is to give notice to any person who is interested in the land to file an objection to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in the notification for acquiring the land for building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway. The brief description of the land, given in a notification, can be identified by the person, who is interested in the land and thereafter, if he files an objection before the competent authority, it cannot be presumed that only because nature of the land has not been mentioned, as is claimed by the owner of the land, the same would not result into violation of any of his statutory right. The necessity of giving brief description of the land is to give an opportunity to any interested person in the land or owner of the land, so as to question acquisition proceedings started by the Central Government."4
2021 (4) RLW 2539 (Raj.) 50 He further relied on the orders of the Division bench of this Court in between Gurram Balakrishna vs. State of Telangana5 wherein this Court has considered the identical issue and dismissed the Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeals. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"[6] According to the learned single Judge, the first notification 19.10.2016 stated that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available for inspection, for the reason that the extent of land that is being acquired in each sub- survey number having been mentioned and the plans being made available for verification in the office of the competent authority, there is sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 3-A. In respect of non-consideration of objection, it was observed that as the writ petitioners have submitted the objection after the last date of submission, i.e. 25.11.2016, the competent authority has not committed any illegality in not consider the same. By referring to Radha Krishna (supra), it is held that description of the public purpose set out in the notification was sufficient and, as such, there exists public purpose for the subject acquisition.
[7] The notification dated 19.10.2016 clearly provides that "the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority". In the second notification under Section 3-A published on 13.06.2017 also, this recital is made and, moreover, as argued by Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for NHAI, writ petitioners' lands are not included in this notification. In respect of the third notification under Section 3-A 5 2022 LawSuit (AP) 376 51 published on 28.07.2017, it is argued that no additional lands were notified, but it was only amendment to earlier Section 3-A notifications.
[8] To appreciate the submissions made by Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for NHAI, we have perused the third notification, which clearly mentions in the opening paragraph that "the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways number S.O.No.3239 (E) dated 19th October, 2016 published in the Gazette of India extraordinary Part.II. Section 3. Sub-Section (ii). Thus, this notification is neither fresh notification nor does it supersede the earlier notification. This being the position, non-mentioning of the words "the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority", is not fatal for the respondents, nor does it make the notification illegal or invalid.
11] Merely because the notification dated 28.07.2017 failed to mention that "the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority", the entire process would not be vitiated for the simple reason that this notification was an amendment to the earlier notifications in which the said recital was made. In the matter ofKushala Shetty and Ors (supra), the following has been held at paragraphs 19 and 20:
"In this case, the Notification dated 10-8-2005, which was published in the Official Gazette of the same date and of which substance was published in two local newspapers, contained full description of the land proposed to be acquired for widening three national highways. The names of the villages in which the land proposed to be acquired was situated, the survey numbers including sub-survey numbers, the nature, type and area of the land were also given in the schedule appended 52 to the notification. Not only this, it was clearly mentioned that land plans and other details of the land are available in the office of the competent authority. This is the reason why none of the landowners (including the respondents) made any grievance that the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due to lack of particulars/details, they were prevented from effectively exercising their right to file objections in terms of Section 3- C(1). Of course, a grievance on this score was made in the objections dated 16-10-2006 filed by some of the landowners of Padavu Village, but that was clearly an afterthought and, in any case, the same did not require consideration because of non- adherence to the time schedule specified in Section 3-C(1) of the 1956 Act."
"The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court for upsetting the well-considered order passed by the learned Single Judge negating the respondents' challenge to the acquisition was that declaration under Section 3-D(1) was published even before communication of the decision taken by the competent authority in terms of Section 3-C(2). The process of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for recording its conclusion appears to have been influenced by an assumption that the objections filed by the landowners had not been decided till the issue of declaration under Section 3-D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that the competent authority had, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the objectors, passed the order dated 11-10-2005."
On perusal of the above orders, the Courts have clearly emphasized that as far as the alignment is concerned, the Courts ought not to have interfere and as far as compliance of Section 3A (1) and 3A(3) is concerned, as contended by learned Special Government Pleader, the authorities have followed the procedure and hence the impugned orders are in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
28. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the record, as contended by the learned counsel for the 53 petitioners that the paper notification under Section 3A(3) issued is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act is not correct. A perusal of the provision Section 3A(1) stipulates mandatory Gazette notification with brief description mentioned in Section 3A(2) of the Act. In the instant case, a perusal of the notification issued by the Central Government on 23.02.2024 clarifies that the said Gazette notification schedule contains the brief description of the land to be acquired. Further a perusal of section 3A(3) mandates issuance of substance of the notification of section 3A(1) in two newspapers which contains one in vernacular language. Accordingly, as per the circular issued by respondent no.1 dated 23.10.2023, the authorities have given substance of the Gazette notification in two newspapers. Hence it cannot be said that the notification issued on 01.3.2024 are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
29. Further as per the averments made in the Writ Petition, it is made clear that the petitioners have verified the QR code and found the survey numbers and extents of the lands of the petitioners which are proposed for the road constructions and accordingly, they have submitted their objections. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have no grievance whether brief description is provided under Section 3A(3) of the Act or not. Considering the above, as the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and the 54 objections were also considered rightly and rejected by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in these matters. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are lacks merit.
30. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Interim order granted in all the Writ Petitions stand vacated. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in all the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 30.12.2025 RD 55 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.11083, 11086, 11090, 11092 and 11095 of 2024 30.12.2025 RD