IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7424 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Malladi Tirapatayya S/o. Late Naganna R/o. Gadimoga , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Sri Kokkiligadda Babit Rao S/o.Peda Ganga Raju R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Sri Karri Tata Rao S/o. Tatayya R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Karri Raghu Rama Varma S/o. Tata Rao R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Karri Lokeswara Varma S/o. Tata Rao R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Karri Chakradhara Narasimha Varma S/o. Tata Rao R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 7 Angadi Tata Rao S/o. China Venkanna R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 8 Rekadi Veera Babu S/o. Narayana Murthy R/o. Lakshmypathipuram, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 9 Palepu Gangadhara Rao S/o. Ganga Raju R/o.Gadimoga, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 10 Sangadi Veerababu S/o. Appa Rao R/o.Gadimoga, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 11 Kaladi Bhairava Swamy S/o. Narayana Murthy R/o.Gadimoga, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 12 Kaladi Narayana Murthy S/o. Mata Raju R/o.Gadimoga, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 13 Boddu Nooka Raju S/o. Polayya R/oPedavalasala, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. 14 Lanke Venkateswarlu S/o. Veerraju R/oPedavalasala, , Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acqisition Officer) Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 Reliance Industries Ltd., 204, Lakeshore Towers, Rajbhawan Road, Somjaiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the initiation of Land Acquisition Proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and 5-A enquiry report dt. 15-3-2008 are arbitrary, capricious illegal, and tainted with malafides and in violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set a side the 4(1) notification dt. 2-12-2007 and also the order under Section 5A enquiry dt. 15-3-2008 or to pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The 14 petitioners herein assail the acquisition proceedings illustrated by the draft notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 2.12.2007, whereby the State through the 1st respondent-the District Collector notified the intention to acquire several extents of land including of the petitioners in Polekurru Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, for the notified public purpose of widening/strengthening of a road, for the Transport, Roads and Buildings Department of the State. In this notification, no urgency was invoked nor the salutary process of soliciting objections and conducting an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, dispensed with. The petitioners, whose names figure in the list of persons interested in the notification under Section 4(1), have been duly served with notices to lodge their objections and they did. These were considered by the competent authority-the first respondent, who by order dated 15.3.2008; communicated to the petitioners the decision after duly considering the objections lodged to the process of acquisition. Though the petitioners have not stated in the writ petition as to what transpired thereafter, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on obtaining instructions, states that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved and published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 29.3.2008 and that an Award enquiry is scheduled on 18.4.2008. The petitioners assail the acquisition, contending that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that it is intended only for the benefit of a private industry namely; Reliance Industries Limited (the 3rd respondent), which has set up an industrial enterprise in the vicinity. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the response recorded by the 1st respondent while setting out the decision under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, vide proceedings dated 15.3.2008. In their objections lodged, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioners contended inter alia that the widening of the road is not for a public purpose but to cater to the requirement of the 3rd respondent-private industry. They also contended that as per the existing population density of the village, the widening of the road is not required and that widening is being undertaken for the benefit of the additional traffic engendered on account the 3rd respondent-industry and therefore the alleged purpose is not a public purpose. In response to the above objections, the 1st respondent recorded (in the order dated 15.3.2008) that the acquisition is being made since it is required by the State for the strengthening and widening of the road and this has been verified in the designs and drawings approved by the Roads and Buildings Department. The execution of the work is however taken up by the 3rd respondent-industry on a “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOD) scheme and therefore the petitioners are not correct in alleging that the acquisition is not for a public purpose. The 1st respondent has also recorded that the requirement of strengthening and widening of the road had been recommended by the A.P. Roads Development Corporation which had recommended a 30 metres width for the road. Smt. Anjana Devi Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would additionally urge that while the 3rd respondent-industry had acquired other private lands for a higher consideration, as evidenced by a sale transaction recorded through a registered sale deed dated 12.6.2007 which discloses that the 3rd respondent has purchased a property for a consideration of Rs.21,60,000/- per acre, the petitioners will be deprived of the market value on their valuable property since the L.A.O. would determine market value on the basis of the basic value register. This contention is stated to be rejected. If the comparative sales in the vicinity of the acquired land disclose a particular market value relevant to the acquisition of similarly situated lands, the Award would have to determine market value on the said basis subject to evidence and proof. Even if the Land Acquisition Officer, in passing the Award irrationally determines the market value, the petitioners have an effective, statutorily ordained remedy by way of seeking reference to the judicial branch under Section 18 of the Act. The suggestion on behalf of the petitioners that the acquisition will tantamount to expropriatory taking of land, is therefore misconceived. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in DAULAT SINGH SURANA V. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [1], for contending that acquisition to benefit a private individual or institution does not amount to public purpose. This principle stated in the above judgment of the Supreme Court does not admit of any disputation. It is an ancient and well-established principle verified by a catena of binding authority. The question however is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present acquisition is for a purpose other than a public purpose? It is alleged by the petitioners that the 3rd respondent is setting up an industry in the vicinity of Polekurru Village and as a consequence of such industrial activity there is an increase in the traffic on the road. Industries do not operate in vacuum. They create employment potential, which in turn increases thoroughfare on existing roads. Members of the public are also benefited directly through creation of employment and indirectly through the revenues to the State engendered by the taxes and other incomes derived from the industrial activity. This contributes to the over all development. Therefore the State is seen to have a public obligation to cater to the increased density albeit on industrial activity. For this reason, the State policy cannot be characterized as constituting the enshorement of private benefit. On the analysis above, no infirmity is discernable in the impugned process of acquisition, warranting interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The State shall not however be entitled to dispossess the petitioners of their property, save in accordance with the procedure established by law including in particular the procedure enjoined by the provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 4.4.2008 Note: CC in three days. Bo cvm [1] . (2007) 1 SCC 641