THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7095 of 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No. 8401 of 2011 DATED: 24.10.2011 In Writ Petition No.7095 of 2011: Between: M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, rep.by its Senior Manager, R.B. Lodha, Nalgonda District. … Petitioner And 1. Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways at New Delhi and 3 others. …Respondents In Writ Petition No.8401 of 2011 Between: M/s. Venkatabalaji Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Ramprasad Agarwal … Petitioner And 1. Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways at New Delhi and 3 others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7095 of 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No. 8401 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in W.P.No.7095 of 2011 is a company engaged in manufacture, sale and supply of Drip Irrigation Equipment and Infrastructure. The petitioner in W.P.No.8401 of 2011 is a company engaged in manufacture, sale of iron & steel ingots and bars. Both the petitioner companies are situated in Kondamadugu village, B.B. Nagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. Whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.7095 of 2011 claims title and possession in respect of Ac.10- 16 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.587 & 588 wherein its factory and staff quarters are located, the petitioner in W.P.No.8401 of 2011 claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.10-30 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.588, 589 & 590 which is being used for its factory and staff quarters. By notification dated 23.03.2009 published under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) a portion of the land in possession of the writ petitioners was sought to be acquired under the National Highways Development Programme Phase-III for the purpose of four-laning of Hyderabad – Yadagiri Section of NH-202 from KM 18.600 to 54.000. In response to the notice issued inviting objections by the landowners, the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted representations to exclude the portion covered by Durga Matha Temple in the land of the petitioner in W.P.No.7095 of 2011 and Hanumanji Swamy Temple situated in the land of the petitioner in W.P.No.8401 of 2011. Alleging that their representations were not considered, the petitioner in W.P.No.7095 of 2011 had earlier filed W.P.No.14860 of 2010. By order dated 29.6.2010 in WPMP No.18715 of 2010 this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and till such consideration no steps shall be taken for removal of the existing temple. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 26.11.2010 rejecting the representation of the petitioner in W.P.No.7095 of 2011 on the ground that the alignment of the Highway cannot be changed. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.7095 of 2011 has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not excluding the consumption of the temple which is in existence for the last 20 years is arbitrary and illegal. So far as W.P.No.8401 of 2011 is concerned, it is pleaded that the objections raised by the petitioner dated 11.12.2010 requesting not to demolish the existing Hanumanji Swamy Temple in its premises and to drop the land acquisition proceedings were not considered at all. Thus in the said writ petition also a declaration is sought that the action of the respondents in not excluding the consumption of Hanumanji Swamy Temple which is existing in an extent of 100 sq.yards for the last 25 years is arbitrary and illegal. In both the writ petitions, it is contended that when a similar hurdle was faced by the respondents in laying the road on account of existence of a Dargah in Aushapur Village and St. Antony’s Shrine, Mettuguda, the respondents had changed the alignment for saving the said religious structures on account of the protest of religious followers and local politicians. Thus it is contended that the action of the respondents in not excluding the temples situated in the land of the petitioners herein while laying the Highway is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, it is explained that the objections raised by the petitioners in both the writ petitions were disallowed by the competent authority for land acquisition since the exclusion, if granted would lead to abrupt change in the alignment of Highway and the same would lead to substandard alignment which would not meet the technical and geometrical specifications in the IRC Codes. Thereafter, the notification under Section 3D, dated 23.03.2010, was published; the award was passed on 20.09.2010; and the compensation amount was deposited before the 2nd respondent on 8.4.2011. The allegation that the alignment at some other places was altered to save the religious structures at the instance of the religious followers has been denied and it is explained that the alignment at Aushapur village was finalized because of various reasons like avoiding dismantling of number of structures which would have caused huge social impact. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The specific plea of the respondents in their counter-affidavits that the two temples which are being effected for the purpose of widening of the National Highway are private temples and there is possibility to re-locate the temples since vacant land is available in the respective factory premises has not been contradicted by the petitioners. It is also not disputed before this Court that the petitioners have already received the compensation for the entire acquired land including the structures of the respective temples. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents in the counters that acquiring the land covered by the temples is unavoidable to ensure that the Highway alignment meets the specified geometrical requirements, particularly in view of the explanation offered that the change in the alignment at Aushapur village and other places was for different reasons but not to save the religious structures as alleged by the petitioners, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned action of the respondents in not excluding the lands covered by the temples in question is either arbitrary or discriminatory. It is also relevant to note that the notification under Section 3D of the Act was published long back on 20.09.2010 and as per sub- section (2) of Section 3D the land vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The said notification was published after the objections raised by the petitioner were disallowed by the competent authority. Thereafter, the award was passed determining compensation for the land acquired and the petitioners have also received the compensation. As held in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR AND ANOTHER v. SHAH HYDER BEIG AND OTHERS[1] after an Award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition or any proceedings thereunder. Moreover the objections of the petitioners were disallowed on technical reasons and the interference by this Court under Article 226 with such decision is impermissible. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit and accordingly both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt. 24.10.2011 gbs [1] AIR 2000 SC 671