The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.13923 of 2010 Date: 21st November, 2011 Between: Chenagoni Venkanna Goud ..... Petitioner and 1.The Government of A.P., rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.K.Kalpana for Mr.G.L.Nageswara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7: Mr.SS.Varma, SC for NHAI Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: ----- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish Sri Pachala Parvathi Someswara Swamy Temple (for short ‘the Temple’), situated adjacent to the National Highway No.9 (NH9) in Inupamula Village, Kethepalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to forbear from demolishing the said temple. The petitioner claims to be the Chairman of the Temple Committee. He has averred that the Temple was constructed during the Kakatiya Dynasty (995-1323 AD) about 1000 years back. The grievance of the petitioner is that, for the purpose of widening of NH- 9, the respondents are seeking to demolish the Temple without taking care to preserve the same. The petitioner alleged discrimination on the ground that the respondents have been exempting Churches and Mosques while subjecting the Temples to a different treatment. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that a notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), was published in the Official Gazette on 01-10-2008, notifying the land falling under acquisition for the purpose of widening the NH-9, wherein the Temple is included; that after following due procedure of publication of the notification, objections were called for under Section 3-C of the Act; that, as no objections were received from any one including the petitioner, declaration under Section 3-D of the Act was published in the Official Gazette of India on 05-05-2009; that a notification under Section 3-G of the Act was published in the newspapers on 26-06-2009 and 27-06-2009 inviting claims from all the persons interested in the land to be filed from 14-07-2009 to 16-07-2009 in the office of Tahsildar, Kethepally Mandal and; that award was passed on 06-05-2010 and compensation was also disbursed to the eligible persons under the award. It is further stated that the Temple is falling within the road alignment; that therefore, its value was included in the acquisition proceedings; that the structural value of the Temple was estimated by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nalgonda, at Rs.32 lakhs and expenditure for punapratishta was estimated at Rs.2 lakhs; that accordingly, a total sum of Rs.34 lakhs was sanctioned by the Office of respondent No.2 on 18-11-2010 and; that the total compensation arrived at Rs.38,16,486/- was paid to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nalgonda, through SBH Demand Draft Nos.65171 to 65175, dated 04-03-2011, under acknowledgement. It is further stated that, even though efforts were made to exempt the Temple from acquisition, the Project Director, NHAI, Hyderabad, has informed through his letter, dated 03-11-2009, that alignment cannot be changed due to several technical reasons. Respondent No.2 has denied showing any discrimination among Churches, Mosques and Temples and stated that, on the basis of the technical design of the road, the structures are required to be acquired irrespective of the religions. It is further stated that a mosque in Kattangur Village was acquired as the same fell within the road alignment. It is re-asserted that no objections were filed by anyone including the petitioner in response to the notification published under Section 3-A of the Act. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.3- the Director, Archeology and Museum Department, it is inter alia stated that the Temple belongs to 12th - 13th Century AD; that there are several loose sculptures carved in black basalt stone and also a pillar of Kakatiya period and; that keeping in view of its archeological and historical importance, the Assistant Director (T), Mahaboobnagar has recommended for its protection under A.P.Act VII of 1960. It is, however, stated that the Temple is proposed to be shifted to nearby hillock, half-a-kilometer away from the National Highway, and the compensation has already been sanctioned for this purpose. No reply-affidavit is filed controverting the above-mentioned averments contained in the counter-affidavits. If the petitioner was interested in saving the Temple, he ought to have filed objections under Section 3-C of the Act in response to the notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act. Evidently, no such objections have been filed. The petitioner allowed the award to be passed and the payment made for the Temple towards its structural value and expenses for its shifting. The above facts reveal that the petitioner is not diligent in espousing the cause of the Temple. Moreover, the Temple is stated to be falling within the road alignment for the purpose of widening the existing NH-9, which is in paramount public interest. Even though the Temple is ancient one, having its own architectural value, as it was found that no realignment of the road was possible, the respondents appear to have been left with no option other than removing the same, after making appropriate provision for its shifting and relocation. In view of these facts, I do not find justifiable reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and that too at this belated stage. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.17517 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 21st November, 2011 LUR