HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.29155 of 2009 Date: March 04, 2010 Between: Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., office at #24-15-11, Kallakurivari Street, J.P. Road, Backside Hotel Sarovar, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, represented by its Managing Director N.V.R. Mohan Rao … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a private limited company which is involved in the business of seafood and its export, has questioned order dated 04-12- 2009 issued in Rc.G.88/07, by the second respondent, competent authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District, in exercise of powers under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The Government of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways Department, issued notification dated 24-09-2009 for acquisition of land which is required for building (widening-four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.9 on the stretch of land from Km.32/050 to Km.48/700 (Vijayawada – Machilipatnam Section) in the District of Krishna in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the aforesaid notification, lands in several villages, which are being affected for the aforesaid purpose, are notified with description of survey nos., and the extents required for acquisition. Land to an extent of 1400 sq. meters in Sy.No.156/1A2 and 250 sq. meters in Sy.No.157/3 of Kurumaddali village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District is also notified in the aforesaid notification along with other lands. In the same notification, objections were invited from persons interested, against acquisition of lands for the notified purpose. The petitioner-company, which is situated in the aforementioned survey nos., has filed objections before the competent authority, i.e. the second respondent herein. On such objections, the competent authority, after giving opportunity of personal hearing on 02- 12-2009, passed the impugned order overruling the objections. 3. The petitioner-company raised objections stating that it is an export-oriented company having an export turnover of 20 million U.S. Dollars and is operating, by obtaining loan facilities from financial institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that it is providing employment to more than 2000 families in the nearby villages; as such, if the company is affected in the process of road widening, it will cause irreparable loss and injury and also deprive livelihood of large number of people. In the objections, it is stated by the petitioner that opposite to its factory, there are vacant lands covered by paddy fields and the petitioner has requested to shift the alignment of the road to avoid acquisition of its land, where the factory is situated. The competent authority overruled the objections by recording a finding to the effect that acquisition of lands of the petitioner is intended for national highway, which is a public purpose and the alignment is proposed by the competent DPR consultants and finalized by the National Highway authorities, New Delhi and it is the best alignment and technically most feasible. It is stated that in view of technical aspects, shifting of alignment from the subject location is not required; as such, acquisition of the lands of the petitioner is inevitable. 4. Heard Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3 and also Sri S.S. Varma, learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 5. In this writ petition, it is mainly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification for acquisition was issued without conducting proper enquiry. It is submitted that as much as factory is constructed in the land which is notified for acquisition and if the acquisition is allowed, the petitioner-company, which is export- oriented, will suffer irreparable loss and injury and the persons working therein, will lose their livelihood. It is further submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner have not been considered and the same are overruled. 6. The General Manager (Tech.) and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while, generally, denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that National Highways Authority of India has taken up the stretch from Vijayawada – Machilipatnam for widening, from the existing two-lane to four-lane from 0/0 to Km.64/5 of NH-9 on BOT basis in Krishna District, under NHDP Phase III and the DPR (Detailed Project Report) consultancy work was entrusted to M/s.Scott Wilson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and the consultants, after conducting technical feasibility studies, submitted proposals for finalization of alignment and after examining all the proposals, the NHAI authorities finalized the alignment from Km.0.00 to Km.64.5. It is stated that the proposed road will be having partial access control with a design speed of 100 Kmph. and the alignment cannot be changed based on individual considerations, as it affects the geometrics of the proposed road, which will ultimately have impact on the design speed. It is further stated that the alignment finalized is a straight alignment, which is falling in the vicinity of the petitioner’s property, and the said alignment cannot be changed based on individual requests. 7. Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the notification, no particulars of the petitioner’s factory are mentioned, but, from a perusal of the provision under Sections 3A(1) and 3A(2) of the Act, it is clear that what is required to be notified is a brief description of the land. Further, under Section 3A(3) of the Act, substance of the notification is also published in two local newspapers. From the notification, it is clear that the description of the land is notified, by giving survey numbers, as agricultural lands. It is also further stated that there are no orders from the competent authority for conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural purpose. In any event, merely because the factory particulars are not given in the notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the Act, the same is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority under Section 3A(2) of the Act. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are also vacant agricultural lands opposite to the land of the petitioner, but it is stated that the alignment for the proposed widening is fixed based on the technical feasibility report. It is also to be noticed that it is not a construction of a new road for the first time, but it is a road, which is being widened from two-lane to four-lane and for the said purpose, the land of the petitioner, is notified under the National Highways Act, 1956. When the alignment is fixed based on the technical feasibility report, merely because other alternative alignment is possible, the same is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that change of alignment will affect the geometrics of the proposed road and will have impact on the design speed. In view of the aforesaid reasons stated in the counter affidavit, I do not find any illegality in overruling the objections raised by the petitioner; as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 04, 2010 MRR