THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.24140, 25239, 25529, 26764, 26924, 26934 & 24489 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 27-07-2010, issued by the National Highways Authority of India (for short ‘the Authority’), under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), in so far as it pertains to acquisition of land for laying a by-pass road at Ongole town, on National Highway No.5. National Highway No.5, also known as, Grand Trunk road; is one of the longest highways in India. It connects Chennai with Kolkatta, passing through east coast. Among other places, the highway passes through Ongole town. Few years ago, the highway was developed into a four-lane road. Since it was not possible to undertake widening to such a level in the town, the authority has laid a road, by-passing Ongole town from the western side. Recently, the authority has taken a decision to further develop the highway, to the one of six-lane road. The consultancy agency suggested that the existing by-pass road of Ongole be widened to six-lane, by acquiring the properties on both sides. However, the owners of the property, that were to be affected, on account of widening, as well as certain others, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26998 of 2009. According to them, the option of widening the existing by-pass road is not at all feasible. The authority filed a counter-affidavit in that writ petition, stating that though the option of widening the existing by-pass road is economic and feasible, it has been decided to lay another by-pass road at Ongole. Taking that plea into account, a Division Bench of this Court closed the writ petition. The authority has undertaken study of laying another by-pass road at Ongole. In the process, three options were considered. According to the first option, the by-pass road was to be laid far away from Ongole town, running into about 20 K.Ms. The second option was that, part of the existing by-pas road would be continued, and it would move further western side from the town, and thereafter join the highway, after about a kilometer away from the existing point. The third option was, to lay the by-pass road on the eastern side of the town, which, in turn, would cross the railway- line, twice. The authority has tentatively chosen the third option, and accordingly issued the notification for acquiring the properties, not only at other parts of the highway, but also those, that are needed for laying the by-pass road, as per option No.3. The petitioners are the owners of properties at various parts of Ongole town, or those, that are interested in the highway, in one way or the other. According to them, option No.3, chosen by the respondents is not feasible, on several counts. It is stated that the surface area between the coast and Ongole town is hardly 15 KMs., and the marshy land is not at all suitable for highway. From the point of view of the economy, the petitioners contend that, two rail over- bridges had to be constructed by incurring huge expenditure, apart from the necessity to acquire existing houses at a very high cost. With these and other contentions, the petitioners submit that the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the lands for option No.3, is totally untenable. On behalf of the authority, detailed counter-affidavits are filed. It is stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since what is published under Section 3-A of the Act is only a notification, de-noting the proposal. According to them, a detailed enquiry would be conducted by the competent authority, and the petitioners can put forward all their contentions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have not only delivered extensive pleadings, but also filed voluminous material before this Court, in their attempt to establish that, the option chosen by the authority, viz., to lay a new by- pass road on the eastern side of Ongole town is not feasible. This Court is not inclined to deal with the same. The reason is that, in matters of this nature, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority. It is only when a decision taken by a statutory authority, contrary to provisions of law, or where the decision is arbitrary and unreasonable, that an occasion would arise to examine the matter, in detail. The second and more important reason is that, the petitioners would have ample opportunity to put forward their contentions before the competent authority, that is vested with the power to examine the objections. In a way, the notification under Section 3-A of the Act is comparable to the one, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the L.A Act’), and the enquiry contemplated under the other provision is similar to the one, under Section 5 of the L.A Act. It is only when the competent authority takes a decision, detrimental to the interests of the petitioners, that they can approach this Court, or pursue other remedies. The petitioners cannot approach this Court, directly, challenging the notification under Section 3-A of the Act, without putting forward their views before the competent authority. There is no reason to believe that the authority would not take such objections into account, before it issues the final notification. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to submit their objections/representations to the competent authority, with reference to the impugned notification, dated 27-07- 2010. The competent authority as well as the National Highways Authority shall take into account the same, and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners shall have three weeks time from today, to submit their objections/representations. It shall be open to them to pursue their remedies, in case the final notification is issued, without taking the objections into account. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-02-2011. KO