IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 286 of 2002 Between: Prattipati Veera Vara Prasada Rao S/o. Sri Sobhanachalam Dr. No. 29-13-13, Kaleswara Rao Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-520 002. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Project Director, National High Way Authority of India, N.H.9, A.D.B.Project, Upstairs S.B.H.Office, Gurunanak Nagar, Vijayawada-500 008. 2 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District. 4 Bhumi Highways, Kanchukota Vari Street, Near Marry Stella College, Ring Road, Vijayawada-520 008. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents as illegal and ultra vires to the Provisions of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also the mandatory provisions of the National High ways Act, 1956 besides declaring that the respondents are not entitled to deal the land of the petitioner situated in R.S.Nos. 29/1-A, 29/2, 29/3-A and 30/1 of Keesara Village of Kanchikacherla Mandal, Vijayawada Revenue Division, Krishna District, without invoking the Provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 286 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and ultravires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also to the mandatory provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 besides declaring that the respondents are not entitled to deal with the land of the petitioner situated in R.S.Nos. 29/1-A, 29/2, 29/3-A and 30/1 of Keesara Village of Kanchikacherla Mandal, Vijayawada Revenue Division, Krishna District, without invoking the Provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the dry land to an extent of Ac.0.82 cents situated in R.S.No.29/1-A, Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.29/2, Ac.8.35 cents in R.S.No.29/3-A and Ac.1.11 cents in R.S.No.30/1 of Keesara Village of Kanchikacherla Mandal, Vijayawada Revenue Division, Krishna District. Respondent No.3, after considering the link and relevant documents, granted pattadar passbook in his favour and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question by paying the regular tax/cess to the Government. The property in question is just abutting the National Highway No.9 (Hyderabad-Vijayawada) in Keesara Village. While so, on 15.12.2001, one Sri N.Ramacharyulu, who is a neighbour, has telephoned to the petitioner saying that the subordinates of the respondents have come to the spot and cut 25 palmyrah trees lying in the land and took away the trees so cut along with the usufruct. Therefore, he rushed to the office of the 1st respondent and questioned the authority/jurisdiction in cutting the 25 palmyrah trees lying on the land. The officials of the respondent No.1 told him that the job was entrusted to the contractor and they must have cut the palmyrah trees to widen the National Highway No.9 under the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. He further came to know that the 1st respondent issued a Notification dated 28.8.2001 under Section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act 1956 intending to acquire certain lands situated in R.S.Nos.36 (part), 79 (part), 89 (part), 93 (part), 103 (part), 102 (part), 100 (part), 116 (part), 117 (part) 126 (part) and 21 (part) of Keesara Village of Vijayawada Revenue Mandal. The petitioner’s land is situated in R.S.No.29/1-A, 29/2, 29/3-A and 30/1 of Keesara Village of Kanchikacherla Mandal, Vijayawada Revenue Division, Krishna District. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that his lands have not been acquired and they are not covered by the notification issued by the 1st respondent. With reference to the claim of the petitioner about the cutting of the palmyrah trees, he made a representation but it has not been considered and the respondents have proceeded further in executing their works. Hence, the present writ petition. The 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer filed the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has an extent of Ac.10.41 cents of lad in R.S.Nos. 29/1-A, 29/2, 29/3A and 30/1 of Keesara Village of Kanchikacherla Mandal and pattadar pass book was issued to him by respondent No.3 and the lands in question are abutting to National Highway No.9 (Hyderabad-Vijayawada road). Certain lands were acquired by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the National Highways Act 1956 for the purpose of widening the road and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not concerned with the issue of Notification for acquiring the lands. It is further stated that all the 25 palmyrah trees are not lying in the petitioner’s land which is in R.S No.29/3A and that of National Highways Authority of India in R.S.No.48 of Keesara Village and they were got surveyed and measured by the Deputy Inspector of Survey of Sub Collector Office, Vijayawada and found that out of 25 palmyrah trees cut between the above lands, two trees are lying in the petitioner’s land in R.S.No.29/3A. Twenty two trees are lying in the land of respondents No.1 in R.S No.48, and the remaining one tree is lying on the exact boundary between the above lands i.e., half portion of the tree is lying in the petitioner’s land and the remaining half portion in the land of respondent No.1. It is also stated that respondents 2 and 3 never interfered with the possession of the lands held by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is the owner of certain lands and the respondent No.1 had issued a notification under the provisions of National Highways Act 1956 for the purpose of widening and formation of roads. It also appears that there were some trees of palmyrah trees in the land of the petitioner as well as the land acquired by the 1st respondent and these trees were cut as they came in the way of widening and formation of the road. Having felt that the petitioner’s lands were sought to be interfered with and the trees lying in his land were cut, the petitioner approached the authorities and made a representation stating that without any authority, the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s land which was not a part of the acquired land by the respondent No.1. From the averments of the counter affidavit, it is clear that in the process of widening the road, the men of the contractor, whom the work of cutting down the trees was entrusted, cut down about 25 numbers of palymarh trees out of which, one tree fell in the land belonging to the petitioner in R.S.No.29/3A and one tree is lying on the exact boundary of the petitioner as well as the land of the first respondent and the remaining trees are lying in the land acquired by the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner’s lands were not acquired and those lands are not the part of the acquired lands. The only dispute is with regard to the palymarh trees lying in the petitioner’s land were cut by the respondents without any authority. The petitioner has made representation, but the same is pending consideration till date. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:- “The 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation said to have been made by the petitioner claiming right over the land belongs to him and also the trees lying in the petitioner’s land that are cut, and pass appropriate orders thereon for payment of necessary compensation, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to the year 2002, if for any reason, the representation said to have been filed is not available in the file, it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such representation being filed, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose it of in accordance with law, within two months thereafter. No costs. ___________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:27.4.2009 mrb