HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.13457 and 24924 of 2010 Date : 27-12-2011 Between: B. Vijay Kumar s/o. B. Sadashiva Reddy .. Petitioner And The Union of India, Represented by its Joint Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri A. Srinath Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: An extent of Ac.0-31 cents, forming part of Ac.1-43 cents, comprised in Sy.No.298/3 of Bhumayapalli village, Khajipet Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, was notified for acquisition under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") for widening of National Highway No.18, vide notification dated 2-9-2009 which was published on 4-11-2009. The petitioner filed his objections to the proposed acquisition on 19-11-2009. Respondent No.4, who is the competent authority, considered the said objections and by order dated 26-11-2009 rejected the same mainly on the ground that the property proposed to be acquired is an assigned land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8153/2010. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 3-6-2010 wherein this Court has accepted the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that respondent No.4 will reconsider the case and pass a fresh order. Accordingly, this Court has set-aside order dated 26-11-2009 of respondent No.4 and left it open to him to consider the petitioner’s objections dated 23-11-2009 in accordance with law and pass fresh orders. Notices were issued under Section 3G of the Act on 9-6-2010 after disposal of W.P.No.8153/2010. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13457/2010. The petitioner also filed fresh objections on 20-7-2010. These objections were considered by respondent No.4 and a fresh order was passed on 5-8-2010 reiterating his earlier view that the land in question was not a private land but the same is an assigned land. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24924/2010. In both the cases, detailed counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent No.4. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.4 has committed a serious error in holding that the property in question is an assigned land. He has stated that there were as many as twelve sale transactions from the year 1914, which fact is not disputed by respondent No.4 and that in the absence of any material to show that the property is an assigned land, respondent No.4 is not justified in concluding that the land in question is an assigned land. The learned counsel alternatively submitted that even assuming that it is an assigned land, unless it is shown that the assignment contains a condition of non-alienation, the assignee was entitled to sell the property. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.4 ought to have considered the objection of the petitioner relating to alignment of the road and changed the existing alignment. As regards the first contention, in the order impugned in W.P.No.24924/2010, it is stated that the verification of revenue records, namely, R.S.R. of Bhumayapalli village revealed that the land in Sy.No.298, admeasuring Ac.29-84 cents is classified as “Assessed Waste” but in the register of holdings of the year 1914, it is mentioned that the owner of the land is Jampana Ankalu and that several sale transactions have taken place from the year 1957 as per the encumbrance certificates issued by the Sub-Registrar, Mydukuru. Respondent No.4, having so held, suddenly jumped to the conclusion that the lands are D.K.T. lands. In my opinion, this finding of respondent No.4 is not supported by any record. The proceedings by which the land was first assigned and the persons in whose favour such assignment w a s made, have not been discussed in the order impugned. Respondent No.4 cannot be guided by an entry in R.S.R. showing the land as “Assessed Waste”. In Akkem Anjaiah Vs. Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District[1], this Court has considered the effect of such entries and held that the initial burden lies on the Revenue Department to show that the land is an assigned one and not private land. Far from any such record being relied upon by respondent No.4, on his own showing, as far back as the year 1914 the name of Jampana Ankalu was shown as the owner of the land and that several sale transactions have subsequently taken place. In the face of these admitted facts, I am of the opinion that there is no rationale in respondent No.4 holding that the property in question is an assigned land. Accordingly, the finding rendered in the order impugned stands set-aside. With respect of the petitioner’s objections regarding acquisition, it is not in dispute that the property is required for widening the existing National Highway for converting same into a four lane highway. Even though the petitioner has raised the plea that proper alignment is not fixed, it is not his case that the respondents have deliberately made wrong alignment in order to deprive him of his land. The issue relating to the alignment falls in the realm of technical expertise and therefore the petitioner is not competent to suggest that the respondents should have changed the alignment. As the proposed acquisition is in overwhelming public interest, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. For the above mentioned reasons, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by holding that the petitioner being the owner of the property is entitled to receive compensation in respect thereof. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.16961/2010, 31871/2010 and WVMP No.5825/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-12-2011 AM [1] 2011(5) ALT 420