IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal Nos. 432 & 433 of 2008 Writ Appeal No.432 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/02/2008 in WP No: 15331 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Vatti Reddemma, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Murthy, R/o.Tadepalligudem ,West Gogavari Dist. 2) D.Vanaja Rani, W/o. Shyam Sunder, R/o.1-18-9/2, Kadakatla,Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .... APPELLANTS AND 1) The Revenue divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer,Eluru, West Godavari District. 2) The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3) Tadepalligudem Municipality, Tadepalligudem , W.G Dist, Rep.by its Commissioner 4) The State of A.P, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Roads & Bulidings(RII) Dept, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.S.SRI RAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.S. NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR R & B Writ Appeal No. 433 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/02/2008 in WP No. 23563 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Vatti Reddemma W/o.late Satyanarayana Murthy, R/o.Tadepalligudem West Godavari District. 2) D.Vanaja Rani W/o.Shyam Sunder R/o.1-18-9/2, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) The South Central Railway, rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2) The Chief Administrative Officer, Constructions, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4) The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 5) Tadepalligudem Municipality, Tadepalligudem WEst Godavari rep. by its Commissioner. 6) The State of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings (RII) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.S.SRI RAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR.P. GANGARAMI REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondent No.5: MR.S. NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 05.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.15331 and 23563 of 2007, Writ Appeal No.432 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.15331 of 2007 whose land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing an approach road connecting a Rail Over Bridge. 2. Upon perusal of the papers, we find that a Rail Over Bridge is to be constructed at Narasapuram-Aswararaopeta Road at KM 112/80 of NH-5. For the purpose of constructing an approach road connecting the said Rail Over Bridge, the land in question along with structure thereon is sought to be acquired. 3. In pursuance of notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the appellants – petitioners filed their objections, which had been duly considered by the authority concerned and thereafter the objections have been rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the order whereby the objections were turned down, Writ Petition No. 15331 of 2007 has been filed by the appellants – petitioners. After considering the relevant facts and upon hearing the learned advocates, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by virtue of the impugned order and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. 5. We have heard learned advocate Sri S. Sriram. It has been mainly submitted by him that the authorities have changed alignment of the Rail Over Bridge and for that purpose no special financial sanction has been granted. It has been further submitted by him that the earlier alignment was in the interest of society and if the Rail Over Bridge is constructed as per the earlier alignment, the land in question along with the structure thereon would not have been acquired. It has also been submitted that the objections raised by the appellants were not properly considered. 6. We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the sketch denoting earlier as well as existing road alignment and Rail Over Bridge. 7. Upon perusal of the sketch we find that at an earlier point of time, the road to be constructed including Rail Over Bridge was longer than the one, which has been now suggested. Moreover, with the existing alignment less land with a construction thereon will have to be acquired and as a result thereof, less people would be put to difficulties and less amount of compensation will have to be paid. It has been stated that pillars for the Rail Over Bridge have already been constructed and, therefore, substantial work with regard to construction is over. 8. Looking to the aforesaid development, in our opinion, the proposed acquisition does not appear to be unjustified and the objections raised by the appellants – petitioners were duly considered. 9. With regard to the submissions made about the financial sanction, in our opinion, the same are not relevant at this stage because the appellants are not concerned with the financial sanction. We may incidentally observe that a government order had already been passed sanctioning certain amount for construction of the approach road as well as the Rail Over Bridge. According to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, by virtue of the new alignment, some more amount will have to be spent. In our opinion, the said submission is not relevant because no averment to the above effect has been made in the pleadings. 10. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, Writ Appeal No.432 of 2008 is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. In pursuance of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.432 of 2008, Writ Appeal No.433 of 2008 would not survive and the same is also dismissed. 12. A copy of this judgment be also placed on record of Writ Appeal No.433 of 2008. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 23, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT}