THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2495 OF 2010 DATED: 25.08.2010 Between: 1. Reddem Chenchi Reddy and another … Petitioners And 1. The Joint Collector (LA)., Kadapa, Kadapa District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2495 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of small extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.410/1 and 412/1 of Chemullapalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District. The 1st respondent by notification dated 09.10.2009 made under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, sought to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of widening/four-laning etc., of National Highway No.18 from Km 167/750 to Km 224/360. The said notification was published in the local daily dated 16.11.2009. It is stated that having found that the said notification did not include the structures existing on the land of the petitioners, they submitted a representation requesting the 1st respondent to notify the existing structures also and pay the compensation as per the market value. The 1st respondent by proceedings dated 2.1.2010 rejected the request of the petitioners stating that no structures were existing at the time of inspection by the competent authority (L.A.) and Joint Collector, Kadapa on 16.7.2009 and that the structures were raised by the petitioners subsequently to claim compensation from the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s request for notifying the structures existing on their lands is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petition that prior to the publication of the impugned notification in the local dailies dated 16.11.2009, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice dated 5.11.2009 calling upon the petitioners to remove the houses constructed in Sy.Nos.410, 412, 406/1 and 522/2 which itself demonstrates that the structures were existing as on the date of the notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, dated 9.10.2009 was published in Vaartha Newspaper on 16.11.2009 calling upon the persons interested to submit their objections. It is further stated that pursuant to the objections received from the petitioners stating that the structures existing on the land were not notified, the petitioners were called upon to appear before the competent authority (LA) and Joint Collector, Kadapa on 29.12.2009 to produce any authenticated evidence in support of their claim. The petitioners along with their counsel had appeared and reiterated that the structures were constructed long back. However, it was found that when the 1st respondent along with the Manager, N.H.A.I., Nandhyal had inspected the structures existing on both sides of the road and videographed the same on 23.09.2008, no structures were existing in Sy.Nos.410, 412, 406/1 and 522 of Chemullapalli Village. It is also stated that the notice under Section 6 (1) of the Survey of Boundaries Act, 1923 was published on the notice-board of Gram Panchayat office, Chemullapalli and the contents of the notice were published by beat of tom-tom in the village stating that the survey would be commenced on 29.11.2008. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had inspected the lands of the petitioners in Chemullapalli village on 16.7.2009 and recorded the structures existing in the alignment area on both sides of the existing road and sent the draft notification proposals on 17.07.2009 for approval. At the time of the inspection on 16.7.2009 also no structures were existing in Sy.Nos.410, 412, 406/1 and 522/2 of Chemullapalli Village and the said fact was mentioned in the notes of inspection. The draft notification was approved on 9.10.2009 and the same was published on the notice-board of the Gram Panchayat, Chemullapalli and the Office of Tahsildar, Khajipet, on 21.10.2009 and it was also published in the village by beat of tom-tom. As the petitioners had raised the structures thereafter i.e., after approval of the draft notification, by notice dated 5.11.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent the petitioners were asked to remove the structures. Hence the request of the petitioners to notify the structures was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 2.1.2010. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Though it is claimed by the petitioners that the structures were existing on the land in question since long time, apparently no material could be furnished by them to substantiate their claim. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents that prior to the approval of the draft notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, dated 9.10.2009, the 1st respondent and other officials had inspected the site in question on 23.09.2008 and videographed the structures existing on both sides of the road and at that point of time no structures were existing in Sy.Nos.410, 412, 406/1 and 522 of Chemullapalli village. The lands in question were again inspected by the 1st respondent on 16.7.2009 and the structures existing in the alignment area were noted. Even as on 16.7.2009 there were no structures existing on the lands in question. Accordingly, the proposals for draft notification were submitted on 17.7.2009 and the same were approved and published in the Government of India Gazette, dated 9.10.2009. The contents of the said notification were published in the local dailies on 16.11.2009. Thus it is the specific case of the respondents that the structures were constructed after the approval of the draft notification on 9.10.2009. The fact that as on 23.09.2008 when structures were videographed, no structures were existing on the land in question and even when the lands were inspected by the 1st respondent on 16.7.2009 there were no structures, is borne out of the record. The draft proposals were sent for approval on 17.7.2009. In the counter- affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is also pleaded that when the 2nd respondent had personally inspected the lands in question it was found that the structures were under construction and accordingly the notices dated 5.11.2009 were issued directing the petitioners to remove the same. The petitioners neither filed a reply affidavit contradicting the specific plea in the counter-affidavit nor any other material could be placed before this Court to substantiate their claim that the structures have been in existence since long time. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for compensation for the structures cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.08.2010 gbs