* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR + WRIT APPEAL No. 203 OF 2010 % Dated 30-04-2011 # Bluepark Seafoods Private Limited, Office at 24-15-11, Kallakurivari Street, J.P Road, Hotel Sarovar Back Side, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Director, N.V.R. Mohan Rao ... APPELLANT VERSUS $ The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and three others …RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Appellant: Shri M.V. Durga Prasad ^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for Respondent 4: Shri S.S. Varma, SC for NHAI <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1) AIR 2005 SC 3520 2) (2010) 7 SCC 129 3) (2005) 13 SCC 477 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 30-04-2011 WRIT APPEAL No. 203 OF 2010 Between: Bluepark Seafoods Private Limited, Office at 24-15-11, Kallakurivari Street, J.P Road, Hotel Sarovar Back Side, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Director, N.V.R. Mohan Rao ... APPELLANT AND The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and three others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 203 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Notification dated 24-09-2009 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) of the Government of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways published by the Collector, inviting objections from the affected persons was responded by the writ petitioner – appellant through objections which came to be rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada vide proceedings dated 04- 12-2009. The said order of rejection was challenged by medium of writ petition, but of no avail to the petitioner – appellant because of its dismissal on the ground that the alignment proposed by the competent DPR consultants had received the approval of National Highway Authority because of its being the best alignment and technically most feasible. The finding so returned is questioned before us on the ground that the feasibility of alternative alignment was not considered at all by the competent authority and such omission was not addressed by the writ Court, hence this writ appeal. The controversy so raised is completely answered at paras 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition (see page 73 of the paper book), perusal whereof reveals that the objections of the appellant were considered after obtaining technical feasibility report from the technical experts which fact is substantiated by the impugned proceedings as well. 2. It also emerges from the stand disclosed by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the widening of road is proposed for design speed of 100 KMs per hour and the deviation of alignment sought by the petitioner would have an adverse impact on the designed speed. Contention is supported by record as well, and substantiates the stand of the respondents that excepting a part of the premises of the appellant’s factory there is vacant land on both the sides of the road stretching to a length of 2 KMs. Record produced by the respondents shows that objections filed by the appellant, dated 09-11-2009 were considered by the competent authority and his proceedings RC.G.88/07, dated 13-11-2009 addressed to the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India refers to objections filed by the appellant with a request to consider to run the alignment straight from 27.8 KMs to 35.2 KMs instead of existing proposal. The competent authority therefore sought remarks/technical opinion on the said proposal to enable it to dispose of the objections. Under the communication of National Highways Authorities in reference NHAI/PIV(BOT)/2009-10/575, dated 04-12-2009 detail technical remarks were sent with respect to each of the objections including the appellant’s objections and so far as the appellant is concerned, it was mentioned as follows: “Objection does not merit any consideration for the change of alignment as the finalized alignment is the best alignment proposed by DPR consultant and finalized by the National Highway Authorities, New Delhi.” Based on the said technical opinion, the competent authority has disposed of the objections of all the objectors, including that of the appellant under the impugned order. Subsequently, Section 3D notification was issued and published in Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part – II, dated 25-01-2010 after considering the report of the competent authority submitted to the Central Government and on satisfaction of the Central Government that the land specified in the schedule should be acquired for the aforesaid purpose and accordingly, the acquired land is declared to vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 3. Going by the record and the pleadings of the parties, coupled with the fact that it is the most feasible alignment as per the opinion of the experts, we find nothing wrong with the rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai[1] to contend that the rejection of objections must be supported by reasons and if reasons are reflected in the record, it would amount to compliance of the judgment and reasons being there in the record, contention fails. Reference was also made by the learned counsel to a case Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority[2], relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced hereunder; “153. There are several avenues for providing rehabilitation and economic security to landlosers. They can be by way of offering employment, allotment of alternative lands, providing housing or house plots, providing safe investment opportunities for the compensation amount to generate a stable income, or providing a permanent regular income by way of annuities. The nature of benefits to the landlosers can vary depending upon the nature of the acquisition. For this limited purpose, the acquisitions can be conveniently divided into three broad categories: (i) Acquisitions for the benefit of the general public or in national interest: This will include acquisitions for roads, bridges, water supply projects, power projects, defence establishments, residential colonies for rehabilitation of victims of natural calamities. (ii) Acquisitions for economic development and industrial growth: This will include acquisitions for industrial layouts/zones, corporations owned or controlled by the State, expansion of existing industries, and setting up special economic zones. (iii) Acquisitions for planned development of urban areas: This will not include acquisitions for formation of residential layouts and construction of apartment blocks, for allotment to urban middle class and urban poor, rural poor etc.” 5. The apex Court dealt with a case that fell within category (iii) above, therefore, observations made in case of category (iii) are not attracted because the case on hand falls within category (i), for it is an acquisition for the benefit of general public which is addressed in para 153.1 extracted hereunder; “153.1 In acquisitions of the first kind (for benefit of general public or in national interest) the question of providing any benefit other than what is presently provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may not be feasible. The State should however ensure that the landloser gets reasonable compensation promptly at the time of dispossession, so that he can make alternative arrangements for his rehabilitation and survival.” A bare perusal of para 153.1 would show that in case of acquisition for benefit of general public, the landowner can stake claim for reasonable compensation and nothing beyond that. 6. Under the Act, Section 3C gives a right to file objections to any person interested and such objections shall be considered by the competent authority after opportunity of hearing. Section 3C (1) is apt to be extracted hereunder: “Any person interested in the land may, within twenty- one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.” 7. The apex Court in Competent Authority vs. Bangalore Jute Factory and others[3] interpreted the aforesaid provision in the following words: “We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under sub-section 3A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner does not question the proposed use of the land for the purpose of road, but only seeks change of alignment of the proposed road to save his factory. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated ‘ in fact we are not questioning whether the alignment is technically correct or not, but we have objection that the said alignment can be changed a little bit adjustment so that our factory will be saved’. Thus, the objection being not with respect to the use of the land, even then the competent authority obtained technical opinion with respect to the said objection of the petitioner and rejected the objections as noted above. Apart from that, he has neither questioned the preliminary notification issued under Section 3A nor final notification, dated 25-01-2010 issued under Section 3D. So much so, notification dated 01-07-2010 under Section 3G too has not been questioned. 8. Viewed thus, interference is uncalled for. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 30-04-2011 K. Shyleshi LR Copy to be marked. [1] AIR 2005 SC 3520 [2] (2010) 7 SCC 129 [3] (2005) 13 SCC 477