THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3918 OF 2010 Dated: 28.06.2010 Between: T. Krishna Murthy … Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi., and 5 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3918 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Public Notice dated 5.6.2009 issued by the respondents under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) so far as it relates to Chityala village of Nalgonda District as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the house property admeasuring 177 sq. yards within Chityala Gram Panchayat on the Hyderabad – Vijayawada National Highway No.9. It is pleaded that the village has 20,000 population and there is every need for laying a bypass road from N.H.9. Though a survey was conducted and a bypass road was sanctioned initially, it is alleged that the proposal was cancelled and instead it was decided at the instance of the local political leaders to widen NH-9 passing through Chityala village. For the purpose of the said road-widening, the 1st respondent issued a notification dated 5.6.2009 under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 declaring that the lands mentioned in the schedule are vested with the Central Government for widening / four- laning, etc., of NH-9 situated form KM 62.290 to KM 126.750 and calling upon the persons interested in the said lands to appear with all original documents before the competent authority and state nature of the interest in such lands. The petitioner contends that as sufficient Government land is available to form a bypass road, the respondents ought to have laid a bypass road instead of taking up the road-widening under the notification dated 5.6.2009 effecting the house property of the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 is illegal also on the ground that the notification under Section 3-A(1) was not published in two local newspapers and also in the vernacular language. It is also alleged that the objections were not heard under Section 3-C of the Act and the 3 days time granted to submit objections was contrary to the requirement under Section 3-C which mandates 21 days time. It is also alleged that the impugned notification Section 3-G was not preceded by the notification under Section 3-D of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that after considering the proposals made on the basis of the technical feasibility studies, the National Highways Authority of India (for short, ‘NHAI’) finalized the alignment for widening of NH-9 into four-lanes. Pursuant thereto, necessary land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956. The notification under Section 3-A (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 10.04.2008 and the same was also published in the Telugu Newspaper - Vaaartha and English - The Hindu, dated 23.6.2008. The said notification included the land claimed by the petitioner in Sy.No.121/2 of Chityala village stating that the same was required for widening of the road on N.H.9. The notification also made it clear that the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification were available and any person interested in the said land may within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification, make his objections. Thereafter, the survey was taken up under Section 3-B of the Act and basing on the same the notification under Section 3-D was published on 29.10.2008 which also included the name of the petitioner against Sy.No.129/2 of Chityala Village. Since the petitioner failed to raise any objections, the notification under Section 3-G of the Act was rightly published on 5.6.2009. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit is substantiated by the copies of the notifications dated 10.04.2008 and 29.10.2008 produced before this Court which included the Sy.No.129/2 of Chityala village as well as the name of the petitioner. Neither a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner nor any other material could be placed before this Court contradicting the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. In the light of the uncontradicted averments in the counter-affidavit supported by the copies of the notifications, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Act is unfounded and cannot be accepted. The petitioner’s contention that alternative land is available for laying the bypass road and therefore the respondents ought not to have taken up the widening/four-laning of N.H.9 is also untenable since the question as to how and in what manner a road should be laid is a matter of policy which is within the exclusive domain of the State. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 28.06.2010 gbs