HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11324 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of November, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy Petitioner AND The Union Government of India, Department of Shipping, Roads, Transport & Highways, Rep.by the Secretary, Room No.501, Transport Bhavan, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi and others Respondents ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, who filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the objection filed by the petitioner in response to the enquiry contemplated under Sec. 3(C) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has not been complied with inasmuch as there is neither any enquiry nor any adjudication of the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the impugned notification issued under Sec. 3(G) of the Act dated 26.4.2010 as violative of the Act for non-compliance of Sec. 3(C) as well as 3(D). Learned counsel points out that the objections primarily relate to demonstrable change in the alignment, which affects the petitioner and, as such, it is imperative for the respondents to have considered and decided the said objections. Counter affidavit filed by the third respondent states that the objections of the petitioner were duly considered and rejected by the proceedings of the Competent Authority on 10.6.2009 and to the extent of substance of the objection of the petitioner on alignment also, it is stated that the technical feasibility studies were conducted and geometric improvements were suggested in the Detailed Project Report consultants for the design speed and final alignment based on the technical feasibility studies which were conducted and as such it is not found feasible to accept the objection of the petitioner. The counter affidavit also states that further notification under Sec. 3(D) of the Act was issued and published vide SO.2451(E) dated 24.9.2009 in the gazette of India within one year from the date of Sec.3(A) notification and, thereafter, the impugned Sec.3(G) notification has been published. It is, therefore, stated that in the absence of any challenge to Sec.3(C) enquiry or Sec.3(D) notification, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Under the scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956, initially notification under Sec. 3(A) of the Act will be issued followed by an opportunity of hearing on objections through Competent Authority under Sec.3(C) and after consideration of the said objections by the Competent Authority, orders having been passed thereon, Sec. 3(D) notification follows. It is important to note Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.3(D) of the Act, which reads as follows: On the publication of declaration under Sub-Sec.(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from al encumbrances. After the declaration under Sec.3(D), the possession is taken by the Government under Sec.3(E) and the determination of compensation is made pursuant to the notification under Sec.3(G) of the Act. It is last of the notifications, which is being challenged in this writ petition. It is evident that vesting under Sec.3(D)(2) has already taken place in favour of the respondents. Irrespective of the validity of Sec.3(G) notification, the lands acquired which are vested in the Central Government, cannot be divested in the absence of any challenge to Sec.3(D) notification. Learned counsel submits that Sec. 3(C) which gives him the right for consideration of objections has been denied to him in the present case and, thereby, the entire procedure followed by the respondents subsequent to Sec.3(C) is invalid. I find it difficult to accept this submission. Even assuming that the petitioner’s right under Sec. 3(C) was violated, non-questioning of the declaration under Sec.3(D) whereby vesting of the land attained finality, in my view, is a formidable obstruction in the petitioner’s way and without getting over the said vesting, petitioner cannot seek to object to the acquisition. Challenge to the notification under Sec.3(G) merely deals with the quantum of compensation, which cannot be equated to challenge to the acquisition itself. The writ petition, therefore, is misconceived and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 12.5.2010 stands vacated. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar November 24, 2011 MAS