HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 7715 OF 2007. DATED 20th December, 2010. BETWEEN Ch. Prakash Rao and anr …Petitioners and Government of AP, Rep by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 7715 OF 2007. ORDER: The petitioners, in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seek a declaration that G.O.Ms.No. 459, Revenue (LA) Dated 8.4.2005, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ORR.No. 182, dated 13.12.2005 and the consequential notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the L.A. Act, dated 2.12.2006 issued by the respondents in so far as they relate to the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.5.00 gts comprised in Sy.No. 297 of Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District as illegal and void. At the threshold, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 22809 and 26996 of 2006, dated 01.10.2007, wherein also the land of the petitioners therein sought to be acquired for Outer Ring Road (ORR) Project in Western sector alignment was challenged. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, though, agreeing to the aforesaid submission of the learned Advocate General, however, submitted that the decision of this Court stated supra covers the subject matter of the present Writ Petition to some extent only and not the entire part. He raised several contentions, reiterating the additional grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of WPMP.No. 31607 of 2008. The sum and substance of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is: i) that the original alignment was changed with oblique motive to accommodate other persons, thereby affecting the petitioners; ii) that the respondent authorities exercised the power arbitrarily in changing the original alignment; iii) that the decision making process of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and void; and iv) that the change of original alignment is unwarranted at all. v) It is the case of the petitioners that the original alignment of the ORR was changed with a view to benefit some influential persons, and, to save the lands belonging to men in power, the ruling party leaders, their relatives, well wishers and kith and kin, whose lands have been covered by the original alignment of the project. It is their case that the original alignment of the ORR was changed to see that the alignment of the ORR is made in such a way that the same passes abutting and nearby to the lands owned by the men-in-power, ruling party leaders, their well wishers and kith and kin to boost up their land value. It is their further case that the entire exercise of acquiring the lands for the purpose of construction of the ORR is liable to be declared void on the ground that the Special Deputy Collector has not been delegated with powers under Section 3-A of the L.A. Act, 1894 and therefore, he did not vested with the powers to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The acquisition of the land for the purpose of ORR is contrary to the provisions of the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and that the Master Plan prepared, and thereafter approved by the Government, which became operative in 1994, did not contain or did not allot any land for the said ORR and therefore, the acquisition of the land for the alignment of the ORR amounts to modification of the Master Plan, which is beyond the power of the Government. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, controverting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since the original alignment of Western Sector passes through hillocks, tanks and lakes, representations were made for change of the said alignment which led to the inspection of the same by the officers of the technical wing of the ORR Project, and that the committee constituted, comprising of senior officials of the Government and HUDA, upon inspection, made some observations that the alignment should not affect any water body as it was environmentally sensitive zone, that the alignment should involve minimal rock cutting and filling as the terrain was uneven, that the alignment should involve minimal bends and curves keeping the design standards of the ORR in mind etc.,. He submitted that in view of the growth of the city and advent of the IT industry and various other educational institutions and industrial projects, the Government initiated the ORR project. The learned Advocate General submitted that inasmuch as the two expert groups appointed by the Government have examined various technical aspects of the project and recommended change of alignment, the revised alignment cannot be nullified simply because it would affect the land of the petitioners. He lastly submitted that all the contentions, which are identical and similar in nature raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No. 22810 and 26996 of 2006, and the same were negatived in the decision rendered on 01.10.2007. He also submitted that the said decision of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 52, 74 and 215 of 2008, dated 05.04.2010. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents and gone through the decisions stated supra. Admittedly, with the growth of the city and advent of I.T. industry and various other educational and industrial projects, it was felt that Outer Ring Road is required to be planned and undertaken to cater to the future needs of the citizens of the twin cities. The Master Plan of the twin cities envisages the laying of Inner Ring Road, Intermediate Ring Road and Outer Ring Road as part of the main circulation system. The matter was examined at various levels from 1997 onwards. Initially, HUDA prepared alignment for ORR in consultation with Municipal Administration and Urban Development, I.T., Industries and Commerce, Roads and Buildings Departments, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In 1984, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority undertook detailed study for the development of the Intermediate Ring Road. In 2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated a project known as the Outer Ring Road Project and HUDA engaged M/s. MECON for feasibility study. In July, 2004, the project was re- examined and on the recommendations made by senior officials of the Government and HUDA, the project was revised so that ORR could pass through open areas avoiding major settlements and habitations. The revised project was notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 442 dated 19.10.2004. The ORR alignment was finalized in April, 2005, providing for a 159 KM road around the twin cities and Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, the original alignment of the Western Sector was changed upon the observations made by the technical wing of the ORR project and committee appointed by the Government, mainly on the ground that the alignment should not affect any water body as it was environmentally sensitive zone, that the alignment should involve minimal rock cutting and filling, as the terrain was uneven, that the alignment should involve minimal bends and curves keeping the design standards of the ORR in mind. Inasmuch as the change in original alignment lead to the lands of the petitioners, which resulted in acquisition of their lands, the petitioners assailed the acquisition proceedings raising several contentions, as stated supra. I have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.10.2007 rendered in Writ Petitions No. 22810 and 26996 of 2006, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 52 of 2008 and batch, dated 5.4.2010 which confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. A perusal of the judgments stated supra reveal that the all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the arguments of the learned Advocate General controverting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, are almost identical and similar in nature to the contentions raised in the aforesaid decisions. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision stated supra considered all the similar contentions raised by both sides in the Writ Petition, following the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Munshi Sing Vs. Union of India {(1973) 2 SCC 337}, State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, {(1980) 2 SCC 471}, Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. {(1998)6 SCC 1}, Union of India Vs. Mukesh Hans {(2004)8 SCC 14}, Union of India Vs.Krishan Lal Arneja {(2004) 8 SCC 453}, Hindustan Petroleum Corn.Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai {(2005) 7 SCC 627},Ram Krishan Mahajan Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh {(2007) 6 SCC 634}, Delhi Administration Vs.Gurdip Singh Uban {(2000)7 SCC 296}, Ramniklal N.Bhuttaq Vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1997,SC 1236) etc.,. Inasmuch as the contentions raised by both sides in this Writ Petition are similar and identical to the contentions raised in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, it is not open at this stage for this Court to again adjudicate the same. Further, it is well settled that this Court cannot go into technical viabilities and economics of the Project and interfere with the decision taken by the expert body, unless such a decision is contrary to law or is tainted by malafides or is against public interest and that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the competent authorities in such like matters and nullilfy the decision taken by the competent authority. In this regard, I am guided by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.452 of 2006, dated 27.04.2006. For the better appreciation of the case, the said decision is apposite to be extracted below: “ We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned Counsel, but have not felt impressed. Rather, we are in complete agreement with the learned single Judge that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the technical experts and nullify the decision taken by the competent authority by assuming that the alternative suggested by a contractor is more suitable or economical. The argument of Shri Reddy which is suggestive of malus animus on the part of Respondent No.4 in approving R4 alingment of Package No.III of right main canal of Indira Sagar project cannot be entertained because neither any factual foundation has been laid for such argument nor the officer concerned has been impleaded as party respondent so as to enable the Court to call upon him to answer the charge of personal malafides. In this connection, we deem it proper to remind ourselves of the Constitution Bench Judgment in E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamilandu, AIR 1974 SC 555, wherein the Supreme Court observed the allegations of mala fides are often levelled but scarcely proved. The Supreme Court further observed that graver are allegations of mala fides, heavier is the burden on the petitioner to establish the same. Therefore, vague and fanciful averments contained in the Writ Petition suggesting that respondent No.4 had acted in a particular manner due to extraneous reasons, cannot be made basis for recording a finding that his refusal to accept the suggestion made by the contractor is tainted by mala fides. We are further of the view that the futuristic possibility of some land getting inundated due to the implementation of a project, which is meant for larger public interest, does not cloth this Court with the jurisdiction to interdict and pass orders, which may result in frustration of a public oriented project. In Narmada Bachavo Andolan Vs. Union of India, {2000) 10 SCC 664} a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope of juridical review, in matters involving execution of irrigation projects etcetera and laid down the following principles: ‘The Courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy making process and the Courts are ill equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people’s fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.’ Taking note of the above limitation on the Court’s power of judicial review in such matters, we are of the view that interference by the Court in development oriented projects should be made in rarest of rare cases and that too when the Court is convinced that the decision taken by the public authority is vitiated due to violation of the mandate of law or any constitutional provision or is against larger public interest.” For the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the contentions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition were already considered by a Division Bench of this Court, which were also affirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal, and that being so, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------- -JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th December, 2010. Msnro