HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Review WPMP No.20405 of 2011 In W.P.No.12350 of 2002 Date : 20-8-2011 Between : Project Director, National Highways, Hyderabad-Bangalore NH-7 Division, Hyderabad .. Review petitioner And M.A. Lateef s/o.M.A. Raheem and others .. Respondents Counsel for Review petitioner : Sri A.Lakshminarayana Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Venugopal The court made the following: ORDER: This Review application is filed by respondent No.5 in W.P.No.12350/2002 seeking review of order dated 2-2-2010 in W.P.No.12350/2002. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The dispute raised in the Writ Petition pertained to non-payment of compensation in respect of lands situated in S.Nos.287, 288 and 291 of village, Gaganpahad village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As there was dispute regarding the actual extent of land of the petitioners acquired by the respondents, this court passed order dated 26-12-2008 wherein the petitioners were allowed to make an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, enclosing the relevant documents for identification of the boundaries of the land, particularly towards the existing road and the Mandal Revenue Officer, in turn, was directed to issue notices to the petitioners, the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Hyderabad-Bangalore NH-7 and the Executive Engineer, National Highways, Hyderabad-Bangalore NH-7 and conduct survey within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioners. The survey report was directed to be placed before the Court. Accordingly, the survey was conducted and the report was filed along with a panchanama. Based on the said report and the sketch enclosed to it, this court concluded that the extents of Ac.0- 14 guntas and Ac.0-10 guntas comprised in Sy.No.287 and Ac.0-11 and Ac.0-03 guntas comprised in Sy.No.288, belonging to the petitioners were utilized for road widening in both the first and second phases respectively. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of land and completing the process within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. In the present Review petition, respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition-Project Director, National Highways, Hyderabad-Bangalore NH-7 Division, pleaded that the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division addressed letter No.I/LA/2531/2011, dated 10-5-2011 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District informing that an extent of Ac.0-28.08 guntas belonging to the petitioners is proposed for acquisition based on the Sub-Division records and he has accordingly sent DN and DD proposals for the latter’s approval. The Review petitioner further pleaded that the said conclusion was arrived at by the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer on the basis of the Sub-Division records. At the hearing, Sri A.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the Review petitioner, has submitted that inasmuch as only an extent of Ac.0-28.08 guntas belonging to the petitioners was acquired as per the entries in Sub Division records, the direction given by this court for acquiring Ac.0-38 guntas, requires review. After hearing Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, and the learned counsel representing the review petitioner, I am of the opinion that the plea of the Review petitioner does not merit acceptance. In the order under review, this court has given a finding on the basis of the survey report and the sketch enclosed thereto, which in unequivocal terms shows that out of Ac.6-04 guntas in Sy.No.287, extents of Ac.0-14 guntas and Ac.0-10 guntas and out of Ac.0-32 guntas in Sy.No.288, extents of Ac.0-11 and Ac.0-03 guntas both in the first and second phases, respectively, belonging to the petitioners were acquired. Thus, the total extent acquired in both the survey numbers in the first and second phases was shown to be Ac.0-38 guntas. Nothing is brought out in the Review petition to discredit the survey report on the basis of which this court has disposed of the Writ Petition. Even though a copy of the Sub-Division record prepared on 13-7-2007 has shown Ac.0-21.84 guntas and Ac.0-06.96 guntas as having been acquired in Sy.Nos.287 and 288, respectively, no material is placed to substantiate the correctness of the same. The said Sub-Division record would have been available with the officials who conducted the survey but in spite of the same, the survey report submitted before the court had clearly mentioned the total extent of the land acquired in both the survey numbers as Ac.0-38 guntas. I am therefore of the opinion that the survey report, on the basis of which the Writ Petition was disposed of, deserves to be given more credence than the purported entry in the Sub-Division record. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the order dated 2-2-2010 in W.P.No.12350/2002. The Review WPMP is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-8-2011 AM