Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tarra Nagaiah vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2020
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6407 of 2019
ORDER:-
The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in laying or forming new road as per plan drawn by them instead of the Section 3A(1) Notification issued by the 1st respondent in the lands of petitioners in Sy.Nos.173/2, 171/2, 78/6B, 76/5B, 76/4B, 76/6B of Gorribanda Village Accounts of Saravakota Mandal of Srikakulam District as illegal.
The averments in the Writ Petition are: The petitioners are owners of various extents of lands in Sy.Nos.173/2, 171/2, 78/6B, 76/5B, 76/4B, 76/6B of Gorribanda Village Accounts of Saravakota Mandal of Srikakulam District which had been acquired for the purpose of expanding National Highway 326A from Km.0.000 to 41.979 in Srikakulam District. The lands of the petitioners fell in the stretch of Km.21.300 to 22.000.
It is the case of the petitioners that the Section 3A(1) notification issued on 19.03.2019 declared that "the Central Government, after being satisfied that for the public purpose the land, the brief description of which is given in the schedule below is required for building (widening/two lane with paved shoulder), maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.326A from Km.0.000 to 41.979 in the district of Srikakulam in the state of Andhra Pradesh, hereby 2 declares its intention to acquire such land. Any person interested in the said land may, within, twenty-one days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of such land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section(1) of section 3C of the said Act".
The petitioners further averred that when they went to the office of the 3rd respondent on 25.04.2019 for verification of the proposed acquisition of their lands, the petitioners were shocked to see that instead of widening of NH 326A, the plan in the office of the 3rd respondent shows laying of new road in the midst of their lands in deviation of the nature of use of land of petitioners for the purpose as was notified by the 1st respondent. The petitioners averred that they had immediately approached this Court to restrain the respondents from forming a new road as per the plan drawn by them and seen by the petitioners on 24.04.2019 instead of the Section 3A(1) Notification issued by the 1st respondent.
After notice the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The averments in the counter affidavit are that there was a proposal to expand the National Highway 326A and necessary survey for such expansion was taken up. In that process, the Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Vizianagaram pointed out that the existing old road between Km 21/300 to Km22/000 had an S curve which needed to be straightened out to ensure that the design speed for National Highways in 100 Kmph in plain terrain vide I.R.C. code-37 is ensured. For this 3 purpose, the said road needed to be straightened out and the road alignment plan for that purpose was placed before the Ministry of Roads and Transport and Highways which approved the same on 08.01.2018. Subsequently, the District Collector, Srikakulam vide Rc.No.2439/2016G1, dated 20.02.2018 had appointed the Special Deputy Collector, (LA) Unit-II as the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the National Highway Act, 1956 in Srikakulam District. Thereupon, the acquisition notification was issued to acquire lands which were falling within the road alignment approved by the Ministry of Roads & Transport and Highways dated 08.01.2018. It is submitted that the straightening of the road in the impugned stretch was carried out to ensure that there were no accidents and that the road alignment complied with the requirements of maintaining the speed of 100 Kmph.
Sri K.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands of the petitioners were adjacent to the road where there was a curve in the road and the 3A(1) notification issued by the respondents was understood by the petitioners to mean that only the land adjacent to the road would be taken for widening the existing road. He submits that it was the understanding of the petitioners that they expected the existing road to be widening and were not told that there would be a new sketch of road laid to straighten out the said curve.
4
Sri K.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act makes it amply clear that the notification is only for widening of the existing road and points to the words "(widening/two lane with paved shoulder)"
in the notification and submits that the said public purpose set out in the notification relates only to the widening of the existing road and it cannot expanded to a fresh road being laid. In these circumstances, he submits that the laying of the road in the manner set out in the sanction plan is not in compliance with the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act and the respondents need to be restrained from undertaking any such action.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents are seeking to take away the lands which are not the subject matter of 3A(1) notification nor is if the case of the petitioners that the notification has been issued in relation to one set of lands and the respondents are trying to lay a road through land which was not notified. He further submits that the petitioners never objected to the proposal in the Section 3A(1) notification and no objections were raised by the petitioners within the 21 days period stipulated in the notification period. He further points to the fact that the entire notification should be read together and the petitioners cannot seek to pick and choose words in the notification. His 5 contention is that if the notification is read in its full context, it could be seen that the notification relates to about 41 km of the road and states that it is for the public purpose of "building (widening/two lane with paved shoulder), maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.326A".
The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that if the notification is read in its entirety, it would be clear that the notification relates to not just to widening of the existing road, but building of National Highway No.326A. In these circumstances, he submits that the action of the respondents in straightening the said S curve is strictly in accordance with the Section 3A(1) notification and also in compliance of the safety requirement of the design which is made to ensure a speed of 100 kmph on the said road.
Heard both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
The question that arises in the present writ petition is whether the section 3A(1) notification covers building of a road or would have to be restricted only to widening of the road. In my view, a perusal of the entire notification would show that the notification relates to building of the road including widening of the road. The fact that this notification relates to a length of 41 km of the highway would also have to be taken into account. The notification cannot be interpreted only to an extent of 700 meters out of 41 km length of the road. In as much as, the S 6 curve which requires to be straightened out is for a stretch of 700 meters being the road between km 21/300 to km 22/000.
In that view of the matter, it is clear that the notification cannot be restricted to only road widening and would have to be taken to include building of a road which may require straightening out of the road.
In the result, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 24-08-2020 SDP 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6407 of 2019 Date : 24-08-2020 SDP