THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25751 OF 2009 Dated: 25.08.2010 Between: 1. Marrireddy Veera Reddy and 2 others. … petitioners And 1. Union of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways, New Delhi, rep. by its Director and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25751 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification dated 24.9.2009 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 proposing to acquire various lands situated in Pamarru Taluk / Mandal, Krishna District for the purpose of the building (widening / four-laning etc.,) maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.9 on the stretch of land from Km 32/050 to Km 48/700 (Vijayawada – Machilipatnam Section) is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of the land in Sy.Nos.878/3B and 879/1B2 of Pamarru Village and Mandal, Krishna District, which are also included in the impugned notification dated 24.09.2009. It is stated that the substance of the impugned notification was published in Hindu Daily, dated 7.11.2009 calling upon the persons interested to submit their objections within 21 days from the date of publication of the said notification. It is pleaded that on enquiry in the office of the 2nd respondent and on verification of the plans displayed it was found by the petitioners that the existing National Highway No.9 i.e., Vijayawada – Machilipatnam Section was a straight stretch from 32/0.50 to 48/700 and a bypass road was proposed to be formed from Km 35 to Km 42 passing through Kurumaddali, Balliparru, Pedamaddali, Kondiparru and Pamarru villages. It is contended that the impugned notification is illegal since the 1st respondent is not competent to exercise the power under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act to acquire the land for the proposed bypass road from km 35 to km 42. While stating that what was notified in the impugned notification was only with regard to the widening of the existing road and it did not include the formation of a new road, it is further contended that in the absence of a notification in the Gazette specifying the formation of the bypass road, it is not open to the respondents to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of bypass road from km 35 to km 42. It is also alleged that there is no need for the proposed road-widening and even the formation of bypass road has been proposed based on extraneous consideration and due to political influence of the persons owning lands on either side of the existing road. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the 2nd respondent under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act is empowered only to decide the objections with regard to user of the land and he is not competent to adjudicate with regard to the validity of the notification issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this writ petition without submitting their objections in response to the impugned notification. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the word building implies that it could be for widening the existing highway which includes providing a new bypass to avoid widening of built-up areas which otherwise would cause large scale social impact in the form of dismantling of number of structures and displacement of huge number of persons. Thus, wherever thickly populated towns or habitations are there and lot of residential houses are to be acquired to widen the National Highways, it is the practice to provide bypasses to such towns and therefore the contentions of the petitioner are untenable. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, it was clearly mentioned in the impugned notification that the Government intended to acquire the land for building, maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.9 on the stretch of the land from km 32.050 to 48.700 in Krishna District and the persons interested were also informed that they are entitled to submit their objections within 21 days from the date of publication. The expressions building, maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.9 undoubtedly include the formation of bypass road wherever it is necessary. As explained in the counter-affidavit the bypass road has been proposed to avoid widening the existing highway at certain points where the widening would result in dismantling of number of structures in the built-up areas resulting in large scale displacement in thickly populated towns and at the same time to clear the traffic congestions on the National Highway. It is explained in the counter-affidavit that a lot of technical parameters have been taken into consideration before issuing the impugned notification. The relevant paragraph from the counter- affidavit may be extracted hereunder: “It is submitted that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) entrusted the preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) to the consultants and the consultant after conducting detailed Traffic study and various feasibility studies, submitted the alignment to the NHAI and the NHAI approved the alignment accordingly. The DPR Consultant, M/s. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick India Limited, after exploring all the possibilities, arrived at the conclusion that forming Bypass to Pamarru Town is necessary and also the Bypass would meet the NH-214 which connects NH-9 at Pamarru to NH-5 at Kathipudi. Thus, wherever thickly populated towns or habitations are there and lot of residential houses are to be acquired to widen the National Highway, it is the practice to provide Bypasses to such towns. The DPR Consultant has taken into consideration of all aspects, which include cost of construction and viability of Project and submitted its report to NHAI.” Thus it is clear that the impugned notification has been issued on application of mind to various technical aspects for the purpose of proper maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.9. This Court will not substitute its opinion to that of the decision taken by the respondents, particularly in the absence of any specific allegations of mala fides. Apparently the notification did not confine the purpose to widening / four-laning of the National Highway. Hence there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that the respondents were not competent to acquire the land in question for the purpose of formation of bypass road. As a matter of fact, the land plans and other details of the land were made available for the inspection by the interested persons and it is not in dispute that the said plans revealed the formation of bypass road as well as the alignment. It is also relevant to note that an opportunity was given to the petitioners under the impugned notification dated 24.9.2009 to submit their objections. Therefore the petitioners ought to have submitted their objections within the time stipulated. No justifiable reason could be made out for the failure of the petitioners to raise their objections before the competent authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.08.2010 gbs