THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.983 of 2003 Dated:10.12.2010 Between: Mallidi Kaniki Reddy. ...Petitioner And The District Collector, E.G.Dist, Kakinada, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.983 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not deleting the land admeasuring Ac.0.16 cents in survey No.54/4A2 and Ac.0.25 cents in survey No.54/5A2 situated at Ethakota Village of Ravulapalem Mandal in East Godavari District (hereafter called, petition schedule land), from the land acquisition proceedings as illegal and arbitrary. He also seeks consequential direction to delete the petition schedule land from the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner statedly is the owner of the petition schedule dry land. It was proposed to widen National Highway No.5 (NH5) from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam from KM 152-00 to KM 164-00. The fifth respondent initiated the proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the Act). It was also published in Vaartha Telugu Daily dated 21.09.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted objections, but the respondents did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act and published the declaration under Section 3D of the Act on 14.01.2002. Therefore, the second respondent who is the competent authority under the Act issued public notice bearing No.(B)225/2001 dated 05.02.2002 which was published in Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper on 16.02.2002 inviting proof of interest in the land acquired for the NH5. The petitioner contends that the issue of the declaration under Section 3D of the Act and publication of notice under Section 3G of the Act without considering his objections renders the notification under Section 3A of the Act illegal. It is also alleged that the work of widening of NH5 was already completed and the land of the petitioner is not at all useful for any purpose. He made a request to the District Collector for deleting the land. As per the directions, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 conducted joint inspection on 01.09.2002 and submitted a report to the effect that the acquisition of vast extents of lands is not necessary as the work is already completed. To that effect, the third respondent also sent a letter dated 20.09.2002. In spite of the same, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 did not initiate any action for deleting the petition schedule land from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. National Highways Authority (NHA) is constituted under Section 3 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (NHAI Act). It consists of a Chairman, not more than five full time members and not more than four part-time members. Section 16 of the NHAI Act enumerates functions of the said authorities, inter alia, to survey, develop, maintain and manage highways and to take all such necessary steps as may be necessary for convenience or may be incidental to the exercise of any power or the discharge of any function conferred or imposed by the Act. The power to acquire the land for building, maintenance, management or operation of National Highway or part thereof, however, is vested in the Central Government. Under Section 3A of the Act they may by a notification in the official gazette authorize an Officer to be “competent authority” to perform the functions for such area as may be specified in the notification. A perusal of Sections 3A to 3I of the Act prescribe the procedure for acquiring the land for the purpose of building and maintenance of National Highways. The acquisition proceedings commence with declaration of intention of the Central Government to acquire the land for building and/or maintenance of National Highway. Such declaration shall be made under Section 3A(1) of the Act in the Official gazette giving brief description of the land. The competent authority appointed under Section 3A of the Act shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers including one in vernacular language. The second stage is the inspection and survey of the land after the issue of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act. Such survey/inspection can be done by a person authorized by the Central Government in that behalf. The third stage involves hearing of objections under Section 3C of the Act. A person who is interested in the land declared under Section 3A(1) of the Act is required to file objections within twenty one days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act, to the competent authority setting out the grounds. There is no requirement of issuing personal notice to the persons interested. But after receiving objections, the competent authority has to afford an opportunity to the objector of being heard either in person or legal practitioner. After hearing such objections and making enquiry, the objections can either be allowed or rejected. When an order is made after hearing the objections, it shall be final. In the fourth stage, the competent authority shall submit a report to the Central Government after disallowing the objections, if any, or when no objections are received under Section 3C(1) of the Act. After receiving the report, the Central Government shall declare by notification in the Official gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose of building and/or maintenance of a National Highway. The publication of the notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act is conclusive, and the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The publication of declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act is subject to condition that it shall be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act or else it will lapse and shall cease to have any effect. In the fifth stage, three things happen one after the other. The first one is determination and deposit of the amount of compensation payable for the land acquired. Sections 3G and 3H of the Act provide that the competent authority shall determine the amount payable to the landowner after giving notice published in two local newspapers including one vernacular newspaper inviting claims from all persons. The amount so determined under Section 3G of the Act shall be deposited in the manner provided by the rules. When once this is done it shall be competent for the competent authority or any other person authorized by him to take possession under Section 3E of the Act whereafter it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government to enter upon the land for carrying out the building and/or maintenance of National Highway. The petitioner approached this Court raising objection to publication of declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act and determination of compensation under Section 3G of the Act. He alleges that he submitted objections after publication of notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act but they were not considered. Admittedly, Section 3D declaration was made on 05.02.2002 and public notice under Section 3G of the Act was issued on 16.02.2002. Except alleging that he submitted objections, the petitioner does not give the details as to when he submitted nor a copy thereof is annexed to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent it is clearly stated that after publishing notification under Section 3A of the Act on 22.08.2001 calling for objections within twenty one days, the objections were heard and the competent authority submitted the land details, and thereafter, declaration under Section 3D of the Act was published on 14.01.2002. The petitioner filed the reply affidavit and the respondents’ allegation is not specifically denied. Thus, there is no proof of the petitioner’s allegations that objections were not heard. When public notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act was issued on 05.02.2002, even at that time, the petitioner did not raise any objection. Only thereafter the petitioner sent a representation to the Project Director to exclude the lands. Even while doing so he did not raise any objection as is now raised except requesting to exclude his land. Therefore, the plea of noncompliance with mandatory procedure cannot be countenanced. It is the case of the petitioner that he approached the District Collector for deleting the land. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 thereafter conducted joint inspection and a report was sent by the second respondent favouring the petitioner. This is admitted. Be that as it is, when once the declaration under Section 3D(1) of the Act is published, the land absolutely vests in the Central Government and it is not competent for the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer (competent authority) to suggest withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. Indeed, there is no such provision in the Act for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings. Indeed, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent authority authorized under Section 3A of the Act and he is not competent authority to suggest the Central Government to exclude the land. The petitioner’s prayer for deleting the land from the concluded land acquisition proceedings, therefore, is not supported by law. In the result, for the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.12.2010 vs