IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.289 of 2010 BETWEEN Bala Agro Oils Ltd. ... PETITIONER AND The Union of India and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S.S. VARMA SC for NHAI GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the National Highways Authority of India. 2. Petitioner has questioned the communication of the fourth respondent dated 30.09.2009 declining to consider favourably the representation of the petitioner for modification of the alignment under the National Highway Project for 4 laning of Vijayawada to Machilipatnam road i.e. KM 0.000 to KM 64.500. 3. Petitioner states in the affidavit that the proposed widening under the scheme of the respondents seriously affects the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.17/2A and 16/1 of Davuluru village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, which is on one side of the existing National Highway No.9. Petitioner is operating a solvent plant, a steel plant and a power plant over the land, which would be seriously affected in the event of the proposed acquisition going through. Petitioner states that he made a representation dated 20.07.2009 to respondents 3 and 4, which stood rejected under the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that there was no opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the very purpose of his making representation and seeking its consideration is defeated by the manner in which the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order. 5. Learned standing counsel has filed a counter pointing out that the notification under the National Highways Act, 1956 commencing from Section 3A was published as early as on 01.10.2008 in the Gazette followed by publication in Telugu Newspaper ‘Vaartha’ on 10.11.2008 and subsequently, after following the procedure prescribed, notification under Section 3D has been published on 24.09.2009 and subsequently, Section 3G public notice as well as the award proceedings are at the completion stage. It is also stated in the counter that the alignment of the road and technical feasibility was assessed and fixed as per the report of the consultants M/s. Scott Wilson Kirk Patrick India Pvt. India, a detailed project report is studied and fixed the alignment and as such, it is not possible to accept the modification, as suggested by the petitioner in his representation. It is in that view that the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 6. After hearing both the learned counsel, it is apparent that the present writ petition was filed on 31.12.2009 but long before that Section 3D notification was issued on 24.09.2009. Under Section 3D(1) of the Act, therefore, vesting of the acquired land with the Central Government has already taken place in September 2009 itself. The present writ petition filed towards the end of December 2009, therefore, cannot unsettle the vesting, which has already taken place with the Central Government. Secondly, objections of the petitioner with regard to the alignment of the national highway, which was fixed by technical consultants, could not have been considered by the respondents in view of the said alignment having been fixed in the light of the several aspects relating to feasibility. A Division Bench of this Court, to which I am party, already considered a similar matter in BLUEPARK SEAFOODS (P) LTD. V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DIST.[1] upholding the alignment fixed under a detailed project report. In view of that also the objections of the petitioner are not tenable and as the proceedings are now at the award stage, petitioner can only seek appropriate compensation subject to proving his claim. Therefore, the writ, as prayed for, cannot be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 19, 2011 DSK [1] 2011 (4) ALD 494