THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3342 OF 2011 Dated: 27.07.2011 Between : G. Harinarayana … Petitioner And 1. The Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada (National Highways)., and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3342 OF 2011 ORDER : The petitioner claims title in respect of 90 cents of land situated in Sy.No.33/2 (2C), 56 cents in Sy.No.33/4 (4B) and Ac.1-14 cents in Sy.No.33/5 (5B) of Garikapadu village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District, which is adjacent to Hyderabad-Vijayawada National Highway. It is not in dispute that a part of the petitioner’s land was acquired for the purpose of four/six-laning of Hyderabad-Vijayawada Section of NH-9 from KM 40.00 to 221.50. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.42,000/- was fixed towards compensation vide Award dated 30.01.2010. Having received the said amount under protest, the petitioner made an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) for enhancement of compensation and the proceedings are pending before the Arbitrator- District Collector, Krishna District. It is pleaded by the petitioner that a common well is existing in the North-Eastern side of Sy.No.33, which is in joint possession of the petitioner and other shareholders, and that the same was proposed for acquisition for the purpose of laying a service road not forming part of the highway. Alleging that the respondents are obstructing use of water from the said well for irrigation of the petitioner’s lands and contending that the action of the respondents in interfering with the use of the common well without paying any compensation and without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition is filed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the acquisition proceedings were initiated vide Notification dated 20.01.2010 published under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 and pursuant thereto an award was passed on 30.01.2010 and compensation had been disbursed to the petitioner. It is stated that the valuation in respect of the open well was not covered in the Award as the same was not visible. It is further stated that the well in question falls within the main carriageway (four- lane road) and it is incorrect to state that it falls within the area proposed for laying service road. It is also explained that the distance of the open well from the proposed centre line of the four-lane is only 7.5 mts, whereas 12.50 mts is required for the right side carriageway including divider and shoulders. It is also stated that though the valuation of the open well was not covered in the Award dated 30.01.2010, subsequently the valuation of the well was made by the Panchayat Raj Division, Vijayawada and the same was submitted to the respondent No.1. Accordingly a Supplementary Award dated 23.04.2011 was passed awarding compensation in respect of the open well also. Thus it is contended that the compensation payable to the petitioner for the land acquired including the open well had already been paid to the petitioner and having received the same, the petitioner was not justified in obstructing the respondents from proceeding with the laying of four-lane road. The petitioner in his Reply affidavit contended that the possession of the well has not been taken by the respondents following due process of law and therefore the alleged action of the respondents in breaking the pipelines laid from the well to the petitioner’s lands for pumping the water and covering the well with sand upto 30 feet and thus making it unfit for utilization is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the fact that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of widening of NH-9 and that an award was passed on 30.01.2010 fixing the compensation is not in dispute. Even according to the petitioner, he has received compensation of Rs.42,000/- towards the land that fell to his share. It is also clear from the material placed before this Court that the land acquired included an open well. Though no compensation was awarded to it under the Award dated 20.10.2010, after the above said award was passed, estimates for open wells situated in Garikapadu village were submitted by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Vijayawada, on 15.03.2010 and in pursuance thereof the Technical Manager, N.H.A.I., submitted the revised estimates for the wells covered under the acquisition. Accordingly, compensation was awarded to the petitioner for the open well also. It is clear from the supplementary award that the petitioner had also made a representation bringing to the notice of the respondents as to the existence of an open well in the land acquired and by way of supplementary award dated 23.04.2011 the petitioner was awarded Rs.21,600/- for the open well apart from Rs.26,178/- and Rs.24,025/- towards the value of the structures and bore-well respectively. Thus a total sum of Rs.71,803/- was awarded to him under the Supplementary Award. From the above, it is clear that the open well formed part of the land acquired under the Notification under Section 3-A, dated 20.01.2010. As per Section 3-D of the Act, on the publication of the declaration under the said Section, the lands shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and as per Section 3-E the competent authority is entitled to take possession on depositing the amount determined towards compensation with respect to such land. Section 3-F makes it clear that where the land has vested in the Central Government under Section 3-D, it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government to enter and do other acts necessary upon the land for carrying out the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or any other work connected therewith. Having regard to the admitted fact that the notification under Section 3-D was published, the Award was passed fixing the compensation and the same was also received by the petitioner, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the open well in question forms part of the land acquired and the compensation for the said open wells was also awarded by Supplementary Award dated 23.04.2011, the land acquired stood vested in the Central Government and the respondents are entitled to carry out the works connected with widening of NH-9, whether it is for the highway or laying of service road. Hence the impugned action of the respondents in filling up the well in question with sand and obstructing the petitioner from drawing water from the said well cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Even assuming that any damage is caused to the pipelines laid by the petitioner and no compensation is paid for the same, the proper course for the petitioner is to make an application as provided under sub-section (5) of 3-G of the Act for redressal of his grievance, however it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the respondents shall be restrained from utilizing the land or the well in question. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 27.07.2011 gbs