THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15294 of 2008 Date : 20-11-2009 Between : M/s. C.I. Print Private Limited and others .. Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15294 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 16-7- 2008 made the following order : “Notice before admission. Since Sri Y.Ravindra, learned Counsel, who accepted notice to respondents 2, 3 and 4 states that after the award was passed on 1-11-2007, the possession of the land in question was taken on 12-11-2007, I am not inclined to grant the interim stay as prayed for. Post for counter on 28-7-2008. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today as to the nature and possession of the land in question shall be maintained.” 2. On 25-2-2009, this Court issued rule nisi. On verification of records since respondents 5 and 6 had not been served and in view of the urgency pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General, urgent notice was ordered to respondents 5 and 6 on 29-10-2009. 3. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the 6th respondent also had been served but no counter affidavit as such had been filed. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in acquiring the land area of Acs.2- 03 gts. in S.No.844, an extent of Acs.1-28 gts. in Sy.No.849, totally admeasuring Acs.3-31 gts. of Patancheru village, Medak District covering the factory of the 1st petitioner and about 48 staff and employee quarters constructed therein under Award No.3 of 2007 in File No.LA Unit-VI/Outer Ring Road/13/2005 dated 1-11-2007 in stead of acquiring the land of respondents 5 and 6 adopting a design of Muthangi Cross Over which is more than 100 years old design i.e., constructing flyovers with two clovers and two directional ramp instead of nano technology interchanges which are being very commonly used in all models in free west and express ways all over the world as arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Constitutional guarantee under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to realign the design by avoiding the construction of a long flyover to pass through an extent of Acs.3-31 gts of land in Sy.No.844 and 849 of Patancheru village, Medak District and lay a clover by acquiring a small portion of the land of respondents 5 and 6 by adopting Nano Technology interchanges which are being very commonly used in all models in free west and express ways all over the world and to pass such other suitable orders. 5. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also pointed out to a copy of the Award, copy of Draft declaration in Form 5- A, copy of Gazette notification, copy of notice in Form-9 with plan, copy of notice, copies of different representations and copy of the order made in W.P.No.23806/2007 and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed and the Writ Petition to be allowed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that purposefully realignment had been made with a view to help the respondents 5 and 6. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General had pointed out to the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that at this stage, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. Even otherwise, in the light of the clear legal position, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. Further, the stand taken that there was some change in the alignment for the purpose of helping the respondents 5 and 6 also cannot be said to be a tenable objection in the light of the plans. The learned Additional Advocate General also had pointed out to the copies of notifications, copies of representations addressed to the higher officials and copy of notice dated 17-1-2007 and copies of objections and copy of the Award and copy of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and a copy of the panchanama as well. The learned Additional Advocate General also had demonstrated how the stand taken by the writ petitioners is not a justifiable stand and ultimately would request that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 7. Ms.Sarada, the learned Counsel representing the 5th respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that the allegation that to favour the 5th respondent some change had been made is not the correct stand. 8. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits and also the material papers placed before this Court. 9. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners’ factory is situated near to Muttangi Cross Over of the proposed Outer Ring Road and they came to know that certain portion of their lands are being acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying flyovers of Muttangi Cross Over. It is further stated that the petitioners had no knowledge of any award passed by the respondents and hence they addressed a letter on 10-6-2008 which was received and acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 11-6-2008 to furnishing the information. After receiving the aforesaid letter the petitioners were informed that an extent of Acs.2-03 gts. had been acquired in S.No.844 and Acs.1-28 gts. in Sy.No.849, totally admeasuring Acs.3-31 gts. of Patancheru village, Medak District and their further enquiry revealed that the portion of the land which comprised of staff and employees quarters inside the factory will be affected by land acquisition. It is further stated that the crossing of the Outer Ring Road over National Highway No.9 had been shifted from beyond Muttangi as per the plan prepared in the year 1984. Thereafter the plan had been altered from time to time and to avoid the land acquisition in respect of the land owned by M/s.Sandvik Smith Asia Limited and M/s.GE Godavari Engineering Limited., i.e., respondents 5 and 6. Further it is stated that the respondents had decided to lay Outer Ring Road by undertaking construction of additional 1 K.M. approximately of the proposed flyover. After receiving the notice proposing to acquire the land, the petitioners gave representation on 3-3-2008 giving reasons why the land acquisition in Sy.No.844 and 849 should be avoided but the said representation was neither disposed of nor the petitioners had received any communication on the status of their representation but the petitioners received information that an award had been passed exparte and the award also had not been communicated to them for the reasons best known to the respondents. It is also further stated that the running time of Outer Ring Road users can be reduced if proper design is adopted with a smaller loop at Muttangi Cross Over by acquiring a small portion of the land of the respondents 5 and 6. The owner of the said lands are influential and had prevailed upon the respondents to avoid the acquisition of any portion of their property and thereby the respondents had decided to lay a 1 K.M. round about with several flyovers increasing the travelling time, additional fuel expenditure for road users which the respondents could have easily avoided. It is further stated that the petitioners are not against the acquisition of land for public purpose but the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to point out how public money is misused to satisfy influential persons. If the lands of the respondents 5 and 6 are acquired, several crores of rupees can be saved by reducing the size of the fly over which will not only facilitate reduce the travel time, consumption of fuel of the road users resulting in substantial saving of public money. 10. It is also further stated that the respondents had not taken into account the fact that the proposed acquisition in respect of the lands upon which 48 staff quarters were constructed would dispossess 72 workers and their families from their shelter if the land admeasuring Acs.3-31 gts. in Sy.Nos.844 and 849 of Patancheru village. The alternate proposals which were submitted can also be considered by the respondents. The work had not yet started and physical possession of the land had not yet been taken over by the respondents from the petitioners and hence there is ample scope for modification and alignment of the design. As the lands of the petitioners are being acquired only to accommodate the respondents 5 and 6 respectively. 11. It is further stated that the petitioners had given a notice under Right to Information Act 2005 seeking information about the acquisition and a reply had been received by the 2nd petitioner under letter dated 28-6-2008. The said letter was however received by the 2nd petitioner on 3-7-2008. It is under the said letter that the passing of the award proceedings dated 1-11-2007 had been informed. In response to the query why the award was not communicated to the petitioners, it is stated that the concerned SDC had issued notice on 7- 11-2007 but the said statement is absolutely false. It is also further stated that the 2nd petitioner was served with a copy of the award on 3- 7-2008 only along with the letter No.D/ORR/104/2007 dated 28-6- 2008. Further it is stated that in response to a query raised by the petitioners why the plan was changed to avoid acquisition of land inside the factory of the respondents 5 and 6 which results in additional acquisition of more than 1 K.M. it was stated by the respondents that the said industries are catering to the employment and livelihood of several workers and acquisition and demolition of the said industries are too expensive and that care has to be taken to the extent possible to minimise the cost of acquisition. It is stated that the aforesaid questions of facts speak volumes about their conduct. The acquisition of land inside the factory of the petitioners shall result in demolition of 48 workers quarters which had provided shelter to 48 families. There is no additional land available for construction of quarters for the workmen of the factory. The total number of workers working in the petitioners’ factory are about 60 and it is not explained how the conversion of the petitioners’ land will not enhance or increase the cost of acquisition. It is also further stated that to avoid conversion of a portion of the land belonging to the respondents 5 and 6, the entire design had been changed resulting in construction of additional flyovers and additional cost of construction will be much more than the money it is proposed to be saved by not acquiring a portion of the land belonging to respondents 5 and 6. The statement of fact made under letter dated 28-6-2008 clearly manifests that the owners and Directors of the respondents 5 and 6 could influence the respondents through their high level connections and the entire plans had been changed at the Muttangi junction jeopardising the public interest. Further it is stated that the reply given by the 4th respondent is sufficient to manifest the fact that the factory land of the petitioners is being acquired with vested interest and with the sole purpose of saving of the lands of the respondents 5 and 6. Further it is specifically stated that it is only to accommodate the respondents 5 and 6 the respondents 1 to 4 had chosen a 100 year old design i.e., constructing flyovers with two clovers and two directional ramp instead of Nano Technologies which are being very commonly used in all models Free West and Express West all over the world. 12. Further it is stated that the action of the respondents in proposing to lay a long flyover at Muttangi Cross over instead of a small loop results in increasing the travel time of the road users, additional fuel consumption and additional burden on public exchequer is against public interest and the said action had been questioned by the petitioners as the same infringed the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the Constitutional guarantee under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court praying for the reliefs already specified supra. 13. The maps showing the details of land acquired in this regard also had been placed before this Court. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner Sri Deepak Bhattarjee and also the learned Additional Advocate General explained the details of these plans. 14. W.V.M.P.No.2401/2008 is filed by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 praying for vacation of the interim order aforesaid. Along with the vacate application, copies of notifications, notices, representations, copy of the report of the 2nd respondent sent to P.D. & Special Collector, copy of notice dated 17-1-2007, copy of award, copy of notice under Section 12(2) and a copy of the panchanama also had been placed before this Court. 15. It is stated in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent that there is no documentary or recorded proof that the 3rd petitioner is the owner of Acs.16.00 gts. in Sy.No.844 and the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of Acs.4.75 of land in Sy.No.849 of Patancheru village Medak District. Further, no representation along with documents were filed either by the 3rd petitioner or by the 1st petitioner at any time of passing of the award for the aforesaid lands. In the available revenue records, the name of the 2nd petitioner was mentioned as pattadar and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.844 and 849 and hence the 2nd petitioner’s name was notified as pattadar and possessor. 16. Further it is stated that for acquisition of lands for formation of Outer Ring Road junction at Patancheru village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, the Draft notification ORR No.106 in Form 2-A under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 21-4-2005 and the same was published in the news papers on 30-4-2005 and 2-5-2005 and in the locality on 2-5-2005. Another Gazette notification O.R.R.No.78 in Form 5-A under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 1-5-2006 and published in the newspapers on 19-5-2006 and in the locality on 27-5- 2006. Further it is stated that an amendment to the Draft declaration i.e., to the Gazette No.78 dated 1-5-2006 had been issued vide Gazette O.R.R.No.43 dated 25-5-2007 as some variations were found in the area of the lands in Sy.Nos.844, 846, 847, 848 and 849 during the scrutiny of Sub-Division Record. It was also published in the locality on 4-6-2007. It is also further stated that the interested persons are supposed to file their objections within 30 days from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, but in the instant case the petitioners failed to file the objections within the time specified under the statute. The 2nd petitioner had filed objections in July 2007 only after the issue of the Draft declaration notifications and publications and after award enquiry. The award enquiry was conducted on 20-6-2006 at the Municipal Office, Patancheru. But neither the 3rd petitioner nor the 2nd petitioner attended the award enquiry. In response to the repeated notices issued, the 2nd petitioner met the 2nd respondent once in the month of August 2006 but he had not submitted any documents establishing ownership with regard to the lands in Sy.Nos.844 and 849. Though the 2nd petitioner had not submitted objections before the specified time, opportunity was given to him for hearing the objections and the copies of the petitions were forwarded to the Special Collector and Technical Authorities concerned for examination of issues raised by the petitioner. However the petitioner himself addressed/met the higher officials concerned and represented the issues to O.R.R. interchange at Patancheru. In response to the letter from the Project Director & Special Collector instructing the L.A.O./Special Deputy Collector to send a report on the representation of the 2nd petitioner dated 8-10-2006, a report was sent by the 2nd respondent to the P.D. & Special Collector on 8-2-2007 but the 2nd respondent did not receive any instructions/orders from the higher authorities concerned for change of alignment/deletion of lands of the petitioner from the acquisition in Sy.Nos.844 and 849 at Patancheru interchange. On 17-1-2007, a notice was issued to the 2nd petitioner for submission of relevant ownership documents with regard to land in Sy.No.849 of Patancheru village but no documents were received. Further, one Sri Anand Mohan Agarwal and Chandra Mohan Agarwal had filed objection petition statingthat they are also the legal heirs of the property of the land in Sy.No.844 of Patancheru and entitled for equal shares and requested not to pay the compensation only to the 2nd petitioner and hence it is concluded that there is a title and apportionment dispute with regard to the land in Sy.No.844. Further it is also stated that the 2nd petitioner in whose name the notification was issued, himself submitted an objection by letter dated 25-9-2007, received on 8-10-2007, to the effect that the land in Sy.No.849 actually belongs to M/s.Central India Printing Company Pvt. Limited. and thus the notification in the name of the 2nd petitioner is null and void. In view of the same, the matter also is considered as title dispute with regard to the land in S.No.849. 17. It is also further stated that since there is a title and apportionment dispute with regard to land in Sy.No.844 and title dispute with regard to land in Sy.No.849, there is no option to the 2nd petitioner except to refer the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of title over the lands. Hence, the general award under Section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 1-11-2007 referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 and for deposition of amount in the civil Court under Section 31 of the Act. After passing of the award, notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act were sent to the petitioner on 7-11-2007 and 17-6-2008 and physical of the land was taken on 12-11-2007 by conducting panchanama. As mentioned by the petitioner, a copy of the award was sent to the petitioner in response to the information requested by him under Right to Information Act through his letter dated 10-6-2008. Further it is stated that in reply to the technical issues, at Muttangi junction in order to facilitate signal free movement of traffic in all directions, the project consultants had designed the junction with flyover, two clovers and two directional ramps etc. In the said junction, as some of the existing industries are catering for the employment and livelihood of several workers and also acquisition/demolition of the existing industries is too expensive, care has to be taken to avoid the existing industrial structures to the extent possible and minimise the cost of acquisition without compromising with the technical requirements of the partial cloverleaf type interchange proposed at the junction with NH-9. However on the South West side, though some of the existing structures could be avoided, the workshops and some of the other structures belonging to the 6th respondent are getting affected in the junction, acquisition has become inevitable. As such all the efforts had been made to avoid the existing structures to the extent possible without compromising with the technical requirements and the allegation that the flyover is designed to favour certain industries is totally incorrect and baseless. Further it is stated that the design had been finalised after consulting international consultants M/s.BECOM, France etc., and the expertise of the petitioner in this regard is minimal and this Court cannot be asked to go into these technical aspects. 18. It is also further stated that the cost for the extra length of the directional ramp had been deposited by M/s.Sandvik Asia Limited., with HUDA and therefore public money is not wasted as alleged by the petitioners and at any rate it is not a public interest litigation and the petitioner cannot raise these allegations in the Writ Petition. The Outer Ring Road had been proposed with 8-lane controlled expressway with 2-lane service roads on either side and other features indicated supra requiring a total ROW of 150 m. Further, Patancheru Junction is an important junction where the proposed Outer Ring Road crosses the National Highway 9. For facilitating signal free movement of the traffic in all directions, cloverleaf interchange had been designed by the International Consultants M/s.BECOM, France in joint venture with M/s.Aarvee Associates and the said type of interchange design is being followed in various developed countries also. In the present design, the petitioners factory is saved and only the staff quarters are being affected but in case the quarters are to be saved, the total factory itself will be affected. Further it is stated that some portion of the land of the respondents 5 and 6 had been saved not because they are influential but because the existing industries are catering for the employment and livelihood of several hundreds of workers and also acquisition/demolition of the existing industries is too expensive and the petitioners’ factory is also saved except for the staff quarters. The extent of the land of the petitioners had in fact reduced by 4.03 crores and this area isles than the area of the respondents 5 and 6 and as such the petitioners should not have any grievances. 19. Further, it is also stated that the allegations of the petitioners that the respondents are deliberately and wilfully acquiring the portion of the land of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.844 and 849 to accommodate and to save the lands of the respondents 5 and 6 is incorrect and baseless. It is derogatory statement made by the petitioners about the public officials and the same are vehemently denied by the respondents. In fact, an extent of Acs.5-02½ gts. of land of the 6th respondent including major structures and an extent of Ac.5-01½ gts. of the land of the 5th respondent including some structures are getting affected in the Outer Ring Road and junction. The respondents had acted in a transparent and in a manner guided by the Act and the Rules and there had been no lacunae or defect in the proceedings. This is the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed along with W.V.M.P.No.2401/2008. 20. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent certain reasons had been explained and it is stated that the company made a request to the authorities to spare the main building and the authorities extended the length of the ramp to save the main building as it is more costly to acquire the structure than extending the ramp slightly. Further it is stated that the Outer Ring Road authorities by letter 266/CGM(T) HGCL/DGM4/07-08 dated 31-10-2007 directed them to pay an amount of Rs.1.57 crores towards extra length of the ramp and for underpass and the same was remitted to the Outer Ring Road project on 5-11-2007 and hence the allegation that the alignment is changed to help the company is entirely false. 21. It is no doubt brought to the notice of this Court that the Writ Petition filed by the 6th respondent had been dismissed by this Court. Be that as it may, in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties on record and also in the light of the