THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos.16461,16462,16463 and 16464 of 2010 Dated: 17.08.2010 WRIT PETITION Nos.16461 of 2010 Between: M/s. Chandra Cement Hollow Brick Industries, … Petitioner And The Competent Authority cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District and another. … Respondents WRIT PETITION Nos.16462 of 2010 Between: M/s. Aruna Industries, …. Petitioner And The Competent Authority cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District and another. … Respondents WRIT PETITION Nos.16463 of 2010 Between: M/s. Raghavendra Cement Hollow Brick Industreis …. Petitioner And The Competent Authority cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District and another. … Respondents WRIT PETITION Nos.16464 of 2010 Between: M/s. Natraj Cement Bricks, …. Petitioner And The Competent Authority cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 16461,16462, 16463 and 16464 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : These writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of the plots of the petitioners i.e., plots 5-B, 6-B, 6-A and 7 respectively situated in Industrial Development Area, Bhongir is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners claim to be the registered small-scale units. They were allotted the above said plots by the APIIC and possession was handed over to them on 30.06.2001. It is stated that the petitioners are running different units in the plots so allotted to them. While so, the notification dated 12.05.2010 under Section 3-G of the National High Ways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the daily news papers stating that for the purpose of the 4/6 laning of the National High Way No.202 it was decided to acquire the land mentioned in the schedule therein and calling upon the persons interested to submit their claims in the said lands for determination of the compensation. The names of all the petitioners were shown in the said notification proposing to utilize different extents of land from their plots. The petitioners were called upon to appear on 16.06.2010. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and on enquiry it was found that the notifications under Section 3-A and Section 3-D of the Act were already published long back. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that as there was no notice to the petitioners under Section 3-A and 3-D of the Act, the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is also contended that the action of the respondents in acquiring the land from the respective plots of the petitioners without conducting any survey is arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged that the respondents had deviated from the original plan so as to accommodate the plot owners on the opposite side of the road who were highly influential. While stating that challenging the proceedings initiated by the APIIC for cancellation of the allotment of plots, the petitioners filed writ petitions which are still pending before this Court and an interim order of suspension of the cancellation is in operation, it is contended that until and unless the title is decided in respect of the plots in question, the respondents cannot be permitted to proceed with the acquisition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in all the writ petitions stating that public notification under Section 3-A of the Act was issued to acquire the lands in Bhongir village in Nalgonda District for the public purpose of widening of four laning of Hyderabad-Yadgiri Section N.H.202 vide Gazette Notification dated 29.11.2009. The said notification was published in two local news papers dated 31.12.2009 calling upon the persons interested to file their objections within 21 days. No individual notices need to be served for acquisition of the lands under the Act. As the petitioners failed to submit their objections within the period of 21 days from the date of publication, the 1st respondent had conducted survey in the notified land and submitted proposals for publication of Section 3-D notification. Accordingly, Section 3-D notification was published in the Gazette dated 23.03.2010. Thereupon the land is vested with the Central Government with free of all encumbrances. Thus, Section 3-G notifications have been published following due process of law and the contentions raised by the petitioners are untenable. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and taken note of the details furnished in the counter-affidavits about the steps taken by the respondents, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that the respondents had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act. So far as the contention that the writ petitions are pending in this Court challenging the cancellation orders passed by the APIIC is concerned, even if the title is in dispute, the compensation amount would be deposited in the Court and therefore, the mere pendency of the writ petitions does not dis-entitle the respondents to take the proceedings under the Act. The allegation that the respondents had deviated from the original plans to accommodate the opposite plot owners has been categorically denied in the counter affidavits and it is explained that the present alignment was proposed by DPR (Detailed Project Report) consisting of competent technical persons based on various technical aspects namely geometric requirements, availability of existing right of way etc., apart from feasibility studies so as to cater the designed speed. Hence the contention that the respondents ought to have acquired the land of equal width on both sides of the road is untenable. The law is well-settled that the acquisition proceedings for a public purpose cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that a section of public would be inconvenienced. As noticed above, the acquisition proposals were initiated based on the alignment suggested by the DPR consultants and the same was finalized taking into consideration various technical aspects. That apart, after publication of Section 3-D notification, the land stood vested with the Central Government and it is not open to the petitioners to question the proceedings at this stage. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. ---------------- G.ROHINI,J Date : 17.08.2010 Note:- CC in 2 days. (B/O) KLP