THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21546 of 2010 DATED: 20.10.2010 Between: M/s. ESSGE Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director V. Manohar Rao .. Petitioner And The Govt. of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and running a small- scale industrial unit located in an extent of 6557 square yards in Sy.No.23 of Durajpally Village, Chievemla Mandal, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. While so, the 1st respondent- Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued public notice dated 21.05.2009, under Section 3-G of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) indicating that the lands mentioned therein vested with the Central Government for the purpose of 4/6 laning of Hyderabad- Vijayawada section from km.40/0 to 221/5 of National Highway No.9, and paper publication of the said 3-G notice was made on 30.06.2010. The petitioner states that the land held by it in Sy.No.23, wherein the factory premises is situated, is also covered by the said notification, but however, the name of the pattadar of the said land is shown as one V.J. Plastic Company, which is no way concerned with the land. The petitioner further states that the factory was established by incurring huge financial liability and if acquisition takes place, it would not be in a position to discharge the financial liabilities and that the employees working in the factory would also be deprived of their livelihood, that the demarcation and alignment was not properly done, and that there is open land on the other side of the road, available for acquisition and therefore the respondents ought not have proceeded for acquisition of its land. Pursuant to 3-G notice, award enquiry notice dated 02.12.2009 was also issued by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) and Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, indicating that award enquiry will be conducted at the office of Durajally Gram Panchayat on 18.12.2009 and requiring the persons interested in the lands to submit their claims in writing along with necessary documents, as regards the compensation amount, and that even in the said notice, the name of the said V.J. Plastic Company Limited is shown as pattadar of the land held by it, but however, since it is having interest in the subject land, it has attended the enquiry held on 18.12.2009 at Durajpally Gram Panchayat, and raised objections before the authorities, apart from submitting written objections dated 18.12.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet. Further, it has also submitted representations dated 05.03.2010 and 07.06.2010, to the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, ventilating its grievances as regards the acquisition of its premises. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering its objections, the respondent authorities are taking steps to take possession of the premises and if the same is allowed, it would cause irreparable loss to it apart from deprivation of livelihood to its employees. It, therefore, filed the present writ petition, seeking appropriate directions. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 30.08.2010, ordered status quo to be maintained as to the possession of the subject land. Pursuant thereto, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1, indicating the issuance of 3-A, 3-D and 3-G notices and publication of the same, as required under the Act, as regards the acquisition of the subject land and other lands for the purpose of 4/6 laning of Hyderabad-Vijayawada Road of National Highway No.9. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the alignment for the 4/6 laning of Hyderabad-Vijayawada road in Suryapet Village has been finalized by the National Highways Authority of India based on the Techno feasibility studies made and submitted by the Detailed Project Report Consultants and finalization of alignment is based on technical feasibilities. It is further stated that, after the NHAI has conveyed its consent to the State Government for fixation of rates for compensation payable to the claimants, the 4th respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer conducted award enquiry and the petitioner has attended the enquiry and deposed his statement and submitted documentary evidence. Thereafter, the 4th respondent passed award on 05.05.2010 with regard to the land acquired in Sy.Nos.23 and 24 of Durajpally Village, including the subject and, and that the Managing Director of the petitioner company gave authorization to his brother V. Ashok Kumar for collection of demand drafts issued for the compensation amount and accordingly the demand drafts were handed over to the said V. Ashok Kumar. It is further categorically stated that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the award, it may file objections for better compensation or for any other relief as regards lands or structures, before the District Collector, Nalgonda, who has been appointed as Arbitrator by the Government of India, vide order dated 16.09.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for NHAI and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Though the petitioner contends that the 3-G notice does not contain its name as pattadar, while indicating the subject land held by it for acquisition, the fact remains, as is evident from the counter- affidavit, that the 3-G notice has been duly published in two local newspapers namely the Hindu and Praja Sakthi on 29.06.2010 and 30.06.2010 respectively. It is not the case of the petitioner that it is not aware of the said notice, but it did not choose to challenge the same at any stage. A perusal of the copy of the award enquiry notice filed along with the writ petition discloses that the name of the petitioner herein is shown as the possessor and enjoyer of the subject land. Even according to the own admission of the petitioner, pursuant to the said award enquiry notice, it has participated in the award enquiry conducted by the 4th respondent and submitted written objections. Thus, having not chosen to question the 3-G notice after its publication and having participated in the award enquiry, the petitioner cannot now question the 3-G notice, on the ground of non-mentioning of its name as pattedar. So far as the other contention raised by the petitioner that the demarcation and alignment was not properly done, is concerned, the respondents have taken a categorical stand that the alignment has been proposed by the competent technical persons who were appointed by the NHAI Detailed Project Report Consultants, based on various technical aspects viz. Geometric requirements, availability of existing right of way etc., so as to cater for the design, and the same has been finalized by the NHAI. However, this Court cannot go into the question of alignment, for it is a matter for the experts to design the assignment, which is done keeping in view various factors. It is not as if only the land of the petitioner is being acquired for the purpose intended, but whoever’s lands are coming under the alignment, they are being acquired. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the alignment has been changed to suit a particular person or that the land is not being acquired as per the alignment. In the instant case, the respondents categorically claim that the alignment was proposed and finalized based on the Techno feasibility studies. The other ground urged by the petitioner, for attacking the acquisition proceedings, is that the factory was established incurring huge financial liability and if acquisition takes place, it would not be in a position to discharge the financial liabilities and that the employees working in the factory would also be deprived of their livelihood. This contention cannot be accepted, since the land was acquired for public purpose and the personal interest of the petitioner has to be overlooked when the land is required for public purpose. Further, according to the counter-affidavit of the respondents, the Managing Director of the petitioner, having participated in the award enquiry, gave authorization to his brother V. Ashok Kumar for collection of the demand drafts concerning compensation amount, and in view of the said authorization, the demand drafts were handed over to the said V. Ashok Kumar. The respondents have also filed the said authorization dated 07.06.2010 given by one V. Manohar Rao, Managing Director, in favour of his brother V. Ashok Kumar. Thus, the petitioner having attended the award enquiry and having received the compensation amount by way of demand drafts, cannot now turn around and question the acquisition proceedings, more so, when the land was acquired for public purpose. The writ petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 20th October, 2010 IBL