THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No.24771 OF 2011 DATED : 21.09.2011 In W.P.No.24360 of 2011: Between 1. Pabbati Laxmaiah and 9 others. … Petitioners And 1. National Highways Authorities of India, rep. by its Project Director, H.No.8-2-334/18, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents A N D In W.P.No.24771 of 2011: Between 1. Meela Bikshapati and 3 others. … Petitioners And 1. National Highways Authorities of India, rep. by its Project Director, H.No.8-2-334/18, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad., and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No.24771 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in W.P.No.24360 of 2011 claim to be the owners and possessors of House properties bearing Nos.3-61, 6-57, 3-82, 3- 62, 4-15, 4-51, 4-1, 3-80, 3-81 and 3-79 situated at Kattangur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioners in W.P.No.24771 of 2011 claim to be the owners and possessors of House properties bearing Nos.4-13/A, 4-14, 4-14/A and 4-14/2 situated in the same village. These writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in proceeding to lay the road through the said properties of the petitioners without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petitions that on 25.8.2011 and 30.08.2011 the staff of the respondents 1 to 3 had come to Kattangur Village and informed the petitioners that their houses would be demolished for the purpose of widening of National Highway and asked them to vacate the houses in 2 days failing which the houses would be demolished by the respondents themselves. It is alleged that though the petitioners requested the respondent No.2 to furnish a copy of the notification, if any, published under the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquiring their houses, there was no response. It is also pleaded that all the petitioners have been staying in the houses in question for the past several years and the impugned action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess them high-handedly is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the 1st respondent – National Highway Authority of India, it is stated that the lands in Kattangur village of Nalgonda District were required for the purpose of widening of four/six-laning of Hyderabad – Vijayawada Section, NH- 9 and therefore the notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published in the Gazette, dated 1.8.2008. The said notification was also published in two local newspapers i.e., The Hindu and Andhra Prabha on 25.8.2008. Subsequently notification under Section 3D (2) was published in the Gazette on 8.4.2009 followed by notification under section 3G. It is stated that Section 3G Notification was also published in local newspapers i.e., Times of India, dated 26.6.2009 and Vaartha Telugu Daily dated 27.6.2009. Subsequently another notification dated 1.6.2010 was published in the Gazette under Section 3A of the Act for the purpose of missing extents of four/six-laning of NH-9. The said notification was published in two local newspaper i.e., The Hindu and Sakshi dated 24.6.2010. Subsequently the notification under Section 3D(2) was published in the Gazette dated 19.10.2010 followed by publication of Section 3G Notification in the Times of India, dated 25.12.2010 and Sakshi Telugu Daily, dated 25.12.2010. Thereafter the compensation amount was also determined following due process of law for the land acquired and structures situated thereon. Based on the Awards so passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 6.5.2010 and 7.5.2011 compensation was released in respect of the land situated in Kattangur village limits. So far as the writ petitioners are concerned, it is stated that their names were not included in the notification and therefore they were not entitled to receive any compensation. It is further stated that an agreement was also entered into with the successful bidder M/s. G.M.R. Hyderabad – Vijayawada Express Ways Private Limited based on the International Competitive Bidding and the work had been commenced as per the terms and conditions agreed upon. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the pleadings, whereas the petitioners claimed that they are owners and possessors of the houses in question, the respondents while disputing the same alleged that the petitioners were mere encroachers on the public road. It is to be noticed that the petitioners did not choose to file any reply affidavit controverting the allegation in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners are encroachers. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon the certificates issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Kattangur Gram Panchayat certifying that the petitioners are the owners of the houses in question as well as the house tax receipts issued by the Gram Panchayat sought to contend that the petitioners are the owners. Be that as it may, this is a case where the Awards were already passed long back under Section 3G of the Act determining compensation payable to the land acquired. The details of the notifications made under Section 3A, Section 3D and Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, furnished in the counter-affidavits make it clear that the land in question was acquired following the procedure prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956. The law is well-settled that once the notification under Section 3D of the Act was published, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In the instant cases, such notification was published long back on 19.10.2010 and thereafter public notice as required under Section 3G was also issued for determination of the compensation payable. Thereafter the awards were passed determining the compensation. Hence it is not open to the petitioners to challenge at this stage the validity of the acquisition. Even otherwise, the petitioners’ claim of ownership and possession is in dispute and such disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners to make an application as provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the District Collector, Nalgonda, who is appointed as the Arbitrator by the Central Government for redressal of their grievance, if any, with regard to compensation awarded. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.09.2011 gbs