THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22410 of 2010 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highway, New Delhi (Department of Road Transport and Highway), which was published in the Government of India Gazette, dated 01.08.2008, for the purpose of widening of 4/6 laning of Hyderabad-Vijayawada section of NH-9, his lands, structures and machinery mentioned at paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, situated adjacent to National Highway No.9 at Nallabandagudem, H/o.Chimmiryala Village of Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District were acquired. The first respondent-Competent Authority (L.A) & Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet passed an award under Section 3G (1) of National Highway Act, 1956 (for short ‘the N.H. Act’) dated 31.07.2010 awarding compensation for the lands, structures etc. It is stated that no notice was issued to him before conducting the survey and that the Competent Authority failed to assess the cost by conducting proper measurements of the properties, ancillary machinery and tools, which were useful in Bulk Drugs industry. The Competent Authority also failed to calculate the landed properties as on the date of notification. The Competent Authority calculated the land value as per the values of the year 2005-06 given by the Sub-Registrar, Kodad. There is no such provision in the N.H. Act to take the values to determine the compensation prior to the notice under Section 3A(1) of the N.H. Act. It is stated that the Competent Authority had followed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, instead of following the N.H. Act, while passing the award, which is illegal. It is further stated that the Competent Authority failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 3G(2) and 3G(7) under Sub- section (1) or Sub-section (5) or Section 3G (7)(a),(b),(c) and (d) of the N.H. Act and forcibly trying to evict the petitioner from the lands and making arrangement to demolish the Bulk Drugs Industry. His grievance is that the Competent Authority had not followed the procedure contemplated under the N.H. Act before acquiring the land and therefore, the impugned Award No.C/1344/2009 dated 31.07.2010 is liable to be set aside. The second respondent-Project Director, National Highway Authority of India filed a counter-affidavit stating that the land acquisition process is being done as per the N.H. Act; that as per Section 13 of National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 any land required by the Authority for discharging its functions under this Act shall be deemed to be the land needed for public purpose and such land may be acquired by the Authority under the provisions of the N.H Act; that as per the provisions of N.H. Act, the land acquisition has been done for the Project Highway; that the compensation for land and structures was fixed by the respective Competent Authorities for Land Acquisition i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, based on the norms in vogue and the compensation for the structures was arrived at by P.W.D (R&B) Officials and the same was included by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the award; that as per Gazette Notification No. S.O.631 (E) dated 23.04.2007 issued under Section 3(a) of the N.H. Act, the Central Government appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet as Competent Authority to perform the functions of such authority under the said Act; that a public Notification has been issued under Section 3(A) of the N.H. Act to acquire the lands in Nallabandagudem (Chimiryala) Village, Nalgonda District for the purpose of widening of 4/6 laning of Hyderabad-Vijayawada section of NH-9, vide Gazette Notification S.O.1912 (E) dated 01.08.2008; that the said notification has also been published in two local news papers i.e., The Hindu, English Daily & Andhra Prabha, Telugu Daily on 25.08.2008; that after publication of 3(D) Notification, the land vests with the Central Government; that 3(G) Notification issued by the first respondent was published in The Hindu English Daily on 29.06.2010 and Praja Sakthi Telugu Daily on 30.06.2010; that as per Section 3(D) (2) of the N.H. Act, the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances; that if any land were acquired for National Highway Authority of India, the procedure under N.H. Act would be followed for the purpose of acquisition; that if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the award passed by the first respondent, he can file a petition for better compensation or any other relief on lands or structures before the sixth respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda District, who is appointed as Arbitrator by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highway vide Order No.NHAI/LA/RR/2001/9 dated 16.09.2009 and that the entire process of land acquisition has been made by following the due process of law only. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the counter-affidavit clearly discloses that after following the due process of law only, the lands were acquired and the impugned award was passed. In paragraph No.5 of the counter- affidavit, the second respondent has given the dates of publication of 3(A), 3(D) & 3(G) Notifications in the Gazette as well as newspapers. But, however, the petitioner has not challenged any of the said Notifications and straight away approached this Court by filing this writ petition. Since the first respondent has already passed the award, and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the appropriate remedy available to him is to approach the Arbitrator, appointed by the Government of India. Therefore, I see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator-District Collector, Nalgonda, for enhancement of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 21.09.2010 va