IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28346 of 2007 Between: Smt. Eluru Subbamma, W/o. Elluru Malleshwara Reddy, Prensently Staying at P.B.No. 562, Sabah, A1-Saleem Kuwait Rep. by the General Power of Attorney Holder, Smt. Eluru Vijaya, W/o. Shankar Reddy, 31 Years, Business, R/o.Chinthkommadinne Village,andMandal Kadapa Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Department, Kadapa. 4 The Executive Engineer, R &B Department, Kadapa. 5 The Engineer-in-Chief R & B Department, Erramanjil, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6 The Regional Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway O/o. The Chief Engineer National Highways, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Subba Reddy for Sri Karnam Ramesh Counsel for Respondents 1 to 5: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 28346 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 06.12.2007 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner against acquiring the extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.112 of Utukuru Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.3254 of 2008 seeking permission of this Court to amend the prayer in the writ petition to question declaration dated 04.01.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 10.01.2008, as illegal. The said application was allowed by this Court on 14.02.2008. Heard Sri M. Subba Reddy representing Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. For the purpose of laying a ring road around Kadapa town, the respondents sought to acquire certain lands including the land of an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in the abovementioned survey number belonging to the petitioner. As enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with, the petitioner filed WP.No.15270 of 2006, which was disposed of on 25.07.2006 by directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 5A of the Act was issued on 07.09.2006 to the petitioner to file her objections, if any and the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 on 29.09.2006 and filed her objections. Respondent No.2 considered the said objections and submitted a report to respondent No.1, who after considering the same, passed order dated 06.12.2007 by which the objections filed by the petitioner were rejected. As evident from the impugned order, the main objection of the petitioner is that the alignment fixed earlier was changed in order to benefit certain persons. The said objection was considered in detail by respondent No.1. In his order respondent No.1 observed that the alignment, which was finally approved, was finalized in conformity with the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Act, 1975, that the original alignment was changed in order to change the reflection angle at the crossing of N.H.18 at KM 159/200+30 mts., and that the same was approved by the Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 thus conclusively rejected the objection of the petitioner that the alignment was changed in order to favour certain persons and held that the same was necessitated on account of scientific reasons. A reading of the impugned order further shows that the Roads and Buildings Department entrusted the job of fixing alignment to private consultancy and that the consultants are given three alternative alignments, which were accepted by the hierarchical officers of the engineering department from Assistant Executive Engineer to Chief Engineer and keeping in view of the technicalities, the Chief Engineer approved the best of the three alignments suggested by the private consultants. It is also mentioned in the order that out of Ac.280.00 cents of patta land acquired for formation of Bye-pass road no one objected for acquisition except the petitioner and that award was passed in respect of all other land owners except in the case of the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal or technical flaw in the reasoning contained in the order passed by respondent No.1. Having carefully perused the order of respondent No.1, I am satisfied that the same does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.37042 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies