THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27351 OF 2011 Dated: 29.09.2011 Between : Sri Chaitanya Cold Storage (P) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Smt. Rayani Mrudula, Guntur District. … Petitioner And 1. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, rep. By its Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-1 and 3 others. … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27351 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims title to an extent of Ac.1-43 cents in Sy.Nos.608/C-2 and 609/B-3, Ankireddipalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal and District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed, dated 18.7.1996. It is stated that the petitioner constructed a Cold Storage, weigh bridge, etc., with compound wall including all facilities and amenities and for the said purpose he availed term loan of Rs.5 Crores from Bank of Maharashtra by mortgaging the Cold storage unit as well as the land. While so, by notification dated 15.1.2009 published under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) a part of the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of widening of NH-5 from 4-lane to 6-lane. To that effect, a public notice was published in Hindu daily, Vijayawada edition on 31.1.2010. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted its claim for compensation as per the prevailing market value of the property but not less than Rs.35,000/- per sq. yard, apart from compensation for the constructions made, machinery and other equipment. A specific request was also made to take into consideration the developments and improvements made by the petitioner and to award compensation for the same. However, without making any such enquiry, the 3rd respondent passed an award and the notice of award under Section 3H(2) of the Act was issued asking the petitioner to bring title deeds, encumbrance certificate, passport size photographs and etc., to receive the amounts. Pursuant thereto, as the respondents are proceeding to take possession of the acquired land, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a further direction to the respondents to constitute a committee of experts to note down the improvements and developments made by the petitioner on the land acquired. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen, the whole grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the alleged failure of the respondents in awarding compensation for the developments made by the petitioner on the land acquired. As per sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act, if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it is open to the aggrieved party to make an application before the District Collector, who is the designated arbitrator under the Act. Hence, if aggrieved it is for the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 3G (5) of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the structures existing on the land in question are removed without assessing their value, it may not be possible for the petitioner to substantiate their claim for compensation for the structures as well as the development made by them even if they propose to initiate proceedings under Section 3G (5) of the Act. I find force in the said submission and therefore, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to get the improvements and developments made to the land in question as well as the structures standing thereon assessed by an approved valuer before the buildings/structures are demolished so that the same can be taken into consideration if any proceedings are initiated as provided under the Act for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby permitted to get the improvements and developments made to the land in question as well as structures standing thereon assessed by an approved valuer and submit the report to the 2nd respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Till such time, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.09.2011 gbs