IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16409 of 2009 Between: N. Manjit Singh Bhatia, S/o. Vajeer Singh Bhatia and another ..... PETITIONERS AND National Highway Authority of India Rep. By its Project Director Project Implementation Unit, H.No:1-3-594, Road No.6, Shastry Nagar(South) Nirmal and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16409 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 11-08-2009 and directed status quo to be maintained for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. W.V.M.P.No.3386 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order. 2. At this stage a request had been made by the learned counsel on record for final disposal of the writ petition and hence the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally by this Court today. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents in unlawfully interfering with the petitioners’ right over the petitioners property in Sy.Nos.177/A (Ac.0-04 guntas) and Sy.No.178 (Ac.0- 05 guntas) situated at Kadtal Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District without any acquisition of the petitioners property and without any proceedings as per law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners’ possession and rights over the said property. 4. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. The principle contention advanced by the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners is that an extent of about Ac.0-09 guntas of land had not been acquired at all since the same is not covered under Section 3(A) notification and without making any acquisition and without paying any compensation the respondents are trying to interfere with that extent of land also. 6. However, it is stated by the learned counsel representing the respondents that except the area covered by the notification, which had been specified in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents are not interfering with the rest of the land. The learned counsel also would maintain that the respondents are interested in the land which had been already acquired by virtue of the notification and they are not interested in the rest of the land. 7. There appears to be some controversy whether any further land had been left over and if so, what is the extent of rest of the land available in this regard. Be that as it may, the relief prayed for in the writ petition had already been specified supra. 8. It is stated that the petitioners are the owners of certain lands, including an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas, which is divided into Ac.0-04 guntas in Sy.No.177/A and Ac.0-05 guntas in Sy.No.178 situated at Kadtal Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District. 9. It is further stated that petitioners’ property is situated in Sivar of Kadtal Village and is abutting the old National Highway No.7. On one side of the petitioners’ property is Saraswathy Canal that is utilized for supplying water from Sriram Sagar Project from down stream Ayacut area. 10. While so, respondent No.1 herein proposed to construct a bye-pass road on National Highway No.7 for adjoining Nirmal Town. The proposed bye-pass road deviated from the existing Highway to the south of the petitioners’ land and was to pass through the eastern side of the petitioners’ land. Therefore a part of the petitioners’ property was also required for the purpose of the bye-pass road. An extent of Ac.0-03 guntas in Sy.No.177/1 and an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.178/1 came under the bye-pass road. Respondent No.1 therefore issued a notification dated 18-01-2008 for acquisition of the petitioners’ property under Section 3-G of National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 in respect of the said Ac.0-30 guntas. 11. It is also stated that a part of the said extent of Ac.0-30 guntas is not falling within the area required for the proposed bye-pass road. But the petitioners were informed that on account of the deviation from the old highway a junction area was proposed and therefore the said land was required. 12. It is also averred that the petitioners land is at a distance of 400 to 500 meters from the point where bye-pass road is cutting away from the highway. There would be no necessity of a junction for such a length. However, as details pertaining to the said junction were not available to the petitioners, the petitioners could not challenge the proposal for acquisition of the said part of the property. 13. Specific stand had been taken that the petitioners were however left with an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas of land in Survey Nos.177/A and 178 of Kadthal Village, which was not notified. The rough sketch had been referred to and several other details had also been furnished in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 14. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is stated that for building (widening/four laning) etc., for maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.7 on stretch of land in 259.778 kilometers to 285.633 kilometers, Nagpur to Hyderabad junction at Kadthal Village of Nirmal Mandal, the land in Sy.No.177/1, to an extent of Ac.1-06 guntas and in Sy.No.178/2 to an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas had been notified in Gazettee No.1196, dated 04-10-2007 and Gazette No.1479, dated 30-11-2007 and also published in English and Telugu papers dated 19-11-2007 and 18- 01-2008. Out of which an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas from Sy.No.177/1 belongs to petitioner No.2 i.e., Sri Gurudeep Singh Bhatia, who received an amount of Rs.63,900/- as compensation in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.177/1. However he refused to receive the compensation in respect of remaining extent of Ac.0-03 guntas in Sy.No.177/1. Likewise, petitioner No.1, namely, Sri Manjith singh Bhatia received an amount of Rs.1,78,920/- and an amount of Rs.6,49,666/- as compensation in respect of land structures situated in Sy.No.178/2 consisting of two separate extents such as Ac.0-28 guntas and Ac.0- 27guntas. The said compensation was paid to the petitioners vide D.D.No.76485, dated 17-07-2008 and D.D.No.223387, dated 05-02-09 and D.D.No.76484, dated 17-07-2008. Thus the compensation to an extent of only Ac.0-03 guntas in Sy.No.177/1 is lying with this office due to non- receipt of the same by petitioner No.2. 15. It is further stated that it is fact that the petitioners in the writ petition have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas and Ac.0-05 guntas from Sy.No.177/A and 178 respectively situated at Kadthal village of Nirmal Mandal through registered sale deed bearing No.611/98, dated 25-03-1998 out of which the compensation to an extent of Ac.0-05 guntas had already been paid to petitioner No.1 and the balance compensation was lying with this office, only due to non-receipt of the same by petitioner No.2. 16. It is also averred that the entire land in Sy.Nos.177/1 and 178/2 was notified in Gazette No.1196, dated 04-10-2007 and Gazette No.1479, dated 30-11-2007 and also published in The Hindu and Vaartha daily Newspaper, dated 19-11-2007 and 18-01-2008. Thus, the plea of the writ petitioner, Sri Gurdeep Singh Bhatia, regarding the non-publication of the balance land is incorrect. As reported in foregoing paragraphs the award of the balance land of Ac.0-03 guntas had already been passed and compensation is lying with this office due to non-receipt of the same by petitioner No.2. Out of Ac.0-30 guntas, only Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.178 belongs to writ petitioner No.1, who had already received the compensation and the land to an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas belongs to Sri Gurdeep Singh Bhatia, who had not received the compensation. 17. It is further stated that the averments made in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition are not maintainable since the National High Way Authorities of India have acquired the entire lands in Sy.Nos.177/1 and 178/2 as per their requisition for the purpose as notified in Gazette No.1196, dated 04-10-2007 and Gazette No.1479, dated 30-11-2007 and also published in The Hindu, English daily newspaper and Vaartha, Telugu daily newspaper, dated 19- 11-2007 and 18-01-2008 for building (widening / four laning) etc, and maintenance and management and operation of National Highway No.7. 18. Therefore, the contention that still Ac.0-09 guntas were left over and not notified is totally baseless and incorrect. Once the lands were notified under National Highway Authority of India Act, the question of de-notifying those lands does not arise at all. In the present case the entire land acquisition proceedings have been completed and the awards in respect of the petitioners herein were passed on 03-05-2008 and 11-07-2008 respectively. Having received the compensation amount, the petitioners filed the present writ petition alleging that the land to an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas belongs to the petitioners were left over without notifying in the Gazette. The said contention is baseless and incorrect for the reasons that the entire land in Sy.No.177/1 and 178/2 was notified. 19. In paragraph No.9, in reply to the averments made in paragraph Nos.14 to 17 of the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners are intentionally re-producing their claim in the above paragraphs, but the contention of the petitioner for payment of Ac.0-09 guntas of land in Sy.No.177/1 and 178/2, (i.e. Ac.0-04 guntas and Ac.0-05 guntas respectively) is baseless. The above extents have already been included in the Award proceedings already finalized. The details of lands, including the lands of writ petitioners, Sy.No. wise, acquired for building (widening / Four laning) for maintenance, managements and operation of National Highway No.7 are as follows. Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent Petition claimed Amount paid D.D. No. & Date 1 177/1 0.10 Gurdeep Singh S/o.Vazeer Singh 63900-00 76484 dated 17-07-2008 2 177/1 0.03 Gurdeep Singh S/o.Vazeer Singh 19710-00 23386 dated 05-02-2009 3 178/2 0.28 Manjeet Singh S/o.Vazeer Singh 178920-00 including structures 76483 dated 17-07-2008 4 178/2 0.27 Manjeet Singh S/o.Vazeer Singh 64966-00 22387 dated 05-02-2009 20. Certain other averments had been made in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit as well. The particulars of the notified land had specifically been referred to in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit. 21. It is needless to say that except the lands, which had been notified in the notification, the respondents cannot lay any claim whatsoever, in relation to the rest of the property, if any available, not covered by the notification. Thus, it is made clear that if the respondents are interested in any other property of the petitioners not covered by the notification the respondents may have to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, with the above observations, especially in the light of the stand taken in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 12, 2009 MD