HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18673 of 2009 Dated: -03-2010 Between: Paluri Satyanarayana & others. … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue-L.A. Department) & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18673 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners, 13 in number, seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in deviating from the original plan in respect of approach road on the Western side of the bridge on river Vynatheya at Pasarlapudi village of East Godavari District, as illegal, and also seek for further directions to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their houses bearing D.Nos.8-161, 8-163, 7-146, 7-111/1, 7-114, 7-127/1, 7-113/1, 7-111, 8-11, 8-11/1, 8-13, 8-13/1, 8-34, 8-36 and 8-35, situated at Pasarlapudi village in Mamidikuduru Mandal of East Godavari Distrit, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and without providing the relief and rehabilitation scheme for the displaced persons. 2. The petitioners are residents of Pasarlapudi village in East Godavari District. They are having residential properties by the side of National Highway No.214, which passes through Kathipudi in East Godavari District to Pamarru in Krishna District. The said National Highway No.214 starts from Kilometer 261/8 of National Highway No.5 (Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam road) and ends at Kilometre 38/6 of Natinal Highway No.9 (Hyderabad- Vijayawada), extended up to Machilipatnam. It passes through the important towns of Kakinada, Yanam, Amalapuram and Razole of East Godavari District, Palakollu and Bhimavaram of West Godavari District. 3. On National Highway No.214, there is an un-bridged crossing of Vynatheya river at Kilometre 105/0 between Bodasakurru and Pasarlapudi villages. After declaration of National Highway No.214, a major bridge was proposed across the river with the approaches at Kilometres 105/0 of Kathipudi-Pamarru road of National Highway No.214. For construction of such bridge, the required land was acquired in the year 2001 on either side of the river, for formation of road approaches. After the detailed project report was prepared, the work was technically sanctioned and entrusted to M/s.Gammon India Limited, Mumbai, vide C.R. Agreement No.2006-07, dated 28th of March 2007. At the time of execution of works by the Contractor, it was found that the road approach on Pamarru side was not connected to the road level of the existing road of National Highway No.214 at the ending of the approaches, but was left over at higher level of 2.2 metres. Hence, for connecting the bridge approach to the existing road level, the bridge approach was necessarily to be extended by another 100 metres on Pasarlapudi side. The Executive Engineer (R&B), National Highway Division, Kakinada, has sent requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, for acquiring the further land of 0.576 acres in R.S.No.344 and 0.66 acres in R.S.No.357 of Pasarlapudi village. When the construction of the bridge was in brisk progress, the Tahsildar, Mamidikuduru, proposed to conduct survey of land proposed for acquisition with Mandal surveyor on 25.07.2009. When such survey was being conducted, there were objections from the petitioners and it is stated that the petitioners did not allow the officials to enter into their premises to take measurements for initiating Land Acquisition proceedings, and thereafter, they approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are taking steps to dispossess them by deviating from the original plan. It is also their case that the respondents are taking steps to dispossess them from their houses without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. Detailed counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that where the bridge is being constructed on Pasarlapudi side, though the road approach is provided with minimum possible gradient of 1 in 40 (Permissible as per National Highway Standards), the road level of the approach at the ending is not joining with the existing road level of National Highway No.214, and left over with a level difference of 2.20 metres. It is further stated that for connecting the bridge approach to the existing road level, further acquisition has become inevitable. In the counter, it is further stated that on requisition by the National Highway authorities, respondents were preliminarily conducting survey to take steps for initiating Land Acquisition proceedings. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that there is no change in the earlier alignment. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel for petitioners that unless the petitioners are given notices, respondents have no authority to enter their premises and to take steps for dispossession of the petitioners. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the land required for the purpose of construction of bridge and approach roads, was already acquired, and as such, only to save the lands of influential persons, respondents are taking steps to deprive the house properties of the petitioners in deviation to the original alignment. 7. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that though the lands were earlier notified for acquisition for the purpose of road approaches, but when the actual construction was started, it was found that there was a level difference of 2.20 metres between the existing road and the bridge approach. In that view of the matter, for connecting the bridge approach to the existing road, it has become necessary to acquire further lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a change in the alignment. Bridge is constructed as per the original alignment, but with a view to fill up the gap in height to maintain approaches to the bridge, it has become necessary to acquire further land, where the houses of the petitioners are situated. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the original alignment is changed only to avoid acquisition of lands of others. It is also clear from the counter affidavits that no proceedings have been initiated so far, under the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of petitioners’ lands. When on the requisition from the Engineering Department, preliminary survey was being conducted so as to identify the required portions for the purpose of initiating land acquisition proceedings, by objecting to such preliminary survey, petitioners have approached this Court. For the purpose of identifying the extent of land required for the purpose of approach roads, it is always open for the authorities to make a preliminary survey for initiating land acquisition proceedings. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that petitioners are being deprived of their properties as otherwise than due process of law. The preliminary survey, which is sought to be conducted, is for the purpose of identifying the exact extent of structures required to be acquired to fill up the level gap and to construct approach roads to the bridge. In that view of the matter, no notice need be issued, at this stage, to the petitioners, to conduct preliminary inquiry. So far, no steps have been taken either to take possession of petitioners’ lands, or to evict them from their residential houses. Only at the stage of preliminary survey being conducted on the requisition sent by the Engineering Department, the petitioners have approached this Court. As much as the steps, which are taken by the respondents, are for the purpose of maintaining the levels between the existing roads and the approach roads to the bridge, which is under construction, it cannot be said either there is a deviation in the alignment of the bridge or to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are being deprived of their house properties without initiating land acquisition proceedings. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition so as to grant the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, dated 8th September 2009, stands vacated. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 2010 ajr