IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 24 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/12/2008 in WP NO : 21000 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 T. Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 2 T. Ramulu, S/o. Sayanna, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 3 T. Nagaraju, S/o. Ramulu, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 4 Ch. Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 5 K.V. Ashok Reddy, S/o. K.V. Reddy, R/o. 2-6-207, Venkata Reddy Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad. 6 M. Venkateswar Rao, s/o. M. Parvaiah, r/o. Plot NO. 149, Vasavi Nagar Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad. 7 M. Srinivas, S/o. M. Sekaraiah, Flat No. 301, Jyothi Apartments, Mahesh Nagar, E.C.I.L. Post, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Revenue Division, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Tranport and High Ways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 11 001. 3 The National High Way Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Hyderabad, having its Office at Plot No. 25, Road No. 2, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep by its Project Director 4 The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings (N.H. DIVISION), Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.2008 made in WP No.21000 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge, permitting the appellants to submit their objections to the acquisition under Sec.3C(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, within four weeks and directing the respondents to give notice of hearing to the appellants and not to dispossess them from the lands in question till a decision is taken by the Central Government under Sec. 3D of the Act, the writ petitioners preferred this Appeal. The notification dated 25.6.2008 shows that the lands mentioned in the schedule, belonging to the petitioners, are sought to be acquired for the public purpose of building, widening/four-laning, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.7 on the stretch of land between 429.00 KM to 447.00 KM. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are four-fold. Firstly, the notification does not disclose any public purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired, secondly, the land adjacent to the lands of the petitioners belonging to Government can be better utilized for construction of the toll gate, which is sought to be constructed. Thirdly, the construction of toll gate does not fall under the definition of public purpose and lastly, under the guise of construction of toll gate, acquisition is sought to be made for construction of commercial complex. The learned Single Judge on extensive consideration of the matter has observed that Sec. 3A(1) of the Act, empowers the Central Government to acquire lands for maintenance, management or operation of the National Highway, which includes construction and operation of toll gates also and, therefore, the objection of the appellants should fail. Insofar as the contention of the appellants that alternate government land is available in the vicinity of the notified lands and that the real purpose of acquisition is not construction of toll gate, but for construction of a commercial complex, it is observed that these are the issues which shall form part of their objections. Observing so, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellants to submit their objections within four weeks entitling them to an opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner and directed the competent authority to put the appellants on notice. It was further made clear that till a decision is taken by the Central Government under Sec. 3D of the Act, the appellants shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal inter alia contending that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen when no public purpose is mentioned in the notification, the same does not fall within the ambit of Sec.3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is further contended that under the guise of public purpose, a device is adopted to defraud the land owners and to deprive them of their source of livelihood inasmuch as substantial extents of their lands were already acquired for widening of the roads more particularly when vast extent of alternate government land is available in the vicinity. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Similar contentions that were raised before the learned Single Judge are sought to be canvassed before us. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the acquisition of the lands of the appellants leaving the vast extent of Government lands in the vicinity and that the actual purpose of acquisition of the appellants’ land is not construction of toll gate but a commercial complex, can always form part of the objections, which the appellants are entitled to under Sec. 3C(1) of the Act. Having regard to these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly permitted the appellants to submit their objections entitling them to an opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner and directed the competent authority to put the appellants on notice. Therefore, we do not see any ground to differ with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the time of four weeks granted by the learned Single Judge expired by 16.1.2009 and, as such, time to file objections may be extended by further three weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to file objections, as ordained by the learned Single Judge, is extended by three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 22, 2009 MAS