IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16499 of 2009 Between: C. Ramasudhakar Reddy and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Kadapa District and another ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued rule nisi on 12-08-2009 and granted status-quo for a limited period in W.P.M.P.No.21674 of 2009, which was subsequently extended for a further limited period. W.V.M.P.No.2987 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim order by the respondents. 2. At request of the learned counsel on record the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and the further stand taken in the reply affidavit as well and would maintain that this discrimination in the widening of the road is being adopted by the respondents for political reasons so as to weaken them economically. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the material papers before this court. 4. On the contrary the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would maintain that the political reasons specified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are unsustainable and absolutely there are no malafides and in accordance with the convenience for the purpose of widening of the road wherever it is necessary such widening is being further proceeded with and hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel. 6. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus holding that the proposed auction of the land in pursuance of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in Ref.No.G1/577/2009, dated 01-03-2009 of the first respondent to widen the road to an extent of 25 meters in width, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders. 7. The first petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the first respondent published notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in local Sakshi daily dated 13-03-2009 proposing to acquire Ac.0.31 cents in S.No.63/1B/2A, Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.71/1B/1 and Ac.0.38 cents in S.No.71/1/A1 of Chapadu village a total extent of Ac.0.78 cents belonging to the first and second petitioners, who are brothers. An extent of Ac.0.34 cents in S.No.61/1A2, Ac.0.15 cents in S.No.71/3A and Ac.0.16 cents in S.No.71/2A of Chapadu village of a total extent of Ac.0.65 cents belong to the third petitioner is sought to be acquired. The entire extent of the land which is sought to be acquired under said notification is a double crop wet land irrigated under K.C. canal. The first petitioner further stated that himself and other petitioners are all small farmers owning land below Ac.5.00 cents and all of them make a living, out of the said land. 8. Further it is averred that the first respondent issued the said notification proposing to acquire the said land for widening the road from Mydukur to Jamalamadugu. The present width of the road from Mydukur to Jamalamadugu is uniformly of the width of 20 meters only. The proposed acquisition of the width of the road varies from18 meters to 25 meters in addition to the existing 20 meters road in width. The acquisition of the land for widening of the road is not uniform. 9. It is also stated that as far as his village is concerned the proposal of widening road up to 25 meters which is in excess, when compared to other villages. The petitioners own land in the said survey numbers abutting the proposed acquisition. The widening of the proposed road up to 25 meters is not bona fide. Further averments had been made that the petitioners are ardent supporters of the candidature of TDP candidate from Mydukur Assembly constituency. In order to cause loss the people opposed to them have prevailed upon the respondents to acquire more of their land in order to adversely affect them economically. The very fact that the existing width of the road through out being 20 meters uniformly and the widening of the road also should be uniform, instead of widening 18 meters at one place and 25 meters at another place. There is no valid reason as to why the acquisition of the land is to the extent of 18 meters at one place and 25 meters in their village. It is further stated that no where in their mandal the width of the road to the extent of 25 meters is proposed except in their village. The very fact that the acquisition of the land to the extent of 18 or 20 meters in other place, whereas in their case it extends up to 25 meters and this would indicate the hostile nature of the acquisition at the behest of the members of the ruling party who are opposed to them. It is also stated that the road at their village is exactly similar in width in every respect as at Alladupalli. There is no ostensible reason as to why the widening of the road at Alladupalli is up to 1.8 meters and in their village it should extent up to 25 meters. The action of the respondents is causing discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India in not treating similarly placed persons equally. 10. Further certain objections made under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act also had been referred to and the rejection thereof without giving any valid reasons also have been specified in para No.5. 11. Certain further averments also had been made relating to the delegation of powers in para No.6 of the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. 12. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the Executive Engineer (R&B), Produtur had requisitioned the lands in the following village for widening the strengthening of Mydukur to Jammalamadgu road (for widening the road in to 4 line). Sl. No. Name of the village & mandal Extent proposed for acquisition 1. Chapad (v) & (M) 5.54 2. Alladupalli (v), Chapad (M) 1.63 3. Bhadripalli (v), Chapad (M) 12.10 4. Pallavolu (v), Chapad (M) 14.34 5. Thallamapuram (v), Chapad (M) 12.00 6. Kothapalli (v), Proddatur (M) 11.91 7. Mydukur (v) & (M) 4.49 Total 62.01 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Proddatur had also informed that there is very heavy vehicular traffic on the road between Mydukur and Jammalamadugu which passes through many villages. To cater the needs of vehicular traffic, it is proposed to widen the road to 4 lane. For execution of the work the existing land is not sufficient. Hence, it is proposed to acquire the land as per requirement. Accordingly the draft notification proposals in respect of the lands proposed to acquisition in Chapad Village and Mandal are got prepared and approved vide Proceedings No.G1/577/2009 dated 01-03-2009 of the District Collector, Kadapa. The publication particulars are as follows. Sl. No. Details Collector’s proceedings No. Gazettee No.& date Publication Particulars Locality 1st paper 2nd Paper 1. D.N. G1/577/2009, Dt.01-03-2009 882, Dt. 3.3.2009 25.3.09 Andhra Prabha Dt. 13.03.09 Saakshi Dt. 13.3.09 Notices under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act was issued to all the ryots to give their representation and objections. The following ryots are submitted their objections, requesting to reduce the road width in widening of the road from Chapad Police Station to Electricity Sub Station. 1. Sri C. Rama Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, 2. Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, 3. Sri C. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o.Pedda Subba Reddy, 4. Sri V. Jayaram Reddy, S/o.Gangi Reddy The Executive Engineer (R&B), Proddatur who is requisition authority was addressed in this matter to offer his opinion. He had reported that the lands are proposed for acquisition to a width of 30 Meters in built up area ie., where the road passes through villages and 40 meters in open areas. In respect of Chapad village the road passes at the outskirts of Chapad Village and not through built up area. So it is proposed the width of road as 40 meters. The objections of the petitioners are also rejected by the District Collector, Kadapa in Proceedings No.G1/577/2009 dated 11-06-2009 and approved the Draft Declaration by the District Collector, Kadapa in Proceedings No.G1/577/2009, dated 26-07-2009. The publication particulars are as follows: Sl. No. Details Collector’s proceedings No. Gazettee No.& date Publication Particulars Locality 1st paper 2nd Paper 1. D.D. G1/577/2009, Dt.26-07-2009 945, 28.07.09 01.08.09 Andhra Jyothi Dt. 01.08.09 Sayam- kalam Dt. 01.08.09 Notices under Section 9 (3) are sent to the ryots to attend for award enquiry through Tahsildar, Chapad. While the matter stood thus the petitioners Sri C. Rama Sudhakar Reddy and others filed W.P. in Hon’ble High Court. In this connection, the first petitioner stated that the D.N. & D.D. proposals are approved in respect of the following villages excluding the Government lands. Sl. No. Name of the village and mandal Extend proposed for acquisition 1. S.Mydukur (v), Mydukur (M) 1.82 2. Alladupalli (v), Chapad (M) 1.63 3. Bhadripalli (v), Chapad (M) 12.00 4. Chapad (v) & (M) 3.25 5. Pallavolu (v), Chapad (M) 14.34 6. Tallamapuram (v), Proddatur (M) 11.91 7. Kothapalli (v), Proddatur (M) 4.28 Total 49.23 The widening of road was proposed in all the above villages and the ryots not objected for acquisition except in Chapad village. The acquisition of land is in outskirts of Chapad village but not in the built up area. As such, the request of the petitioner deserves no consideration. 13. The specific para wise remarks also had been made in the counter-affidavit filed. It is averred that notification was published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing the lands for acquisition relating to the petitioners. It is also fact that the lands are irrigated lands. Though the petitioners are small farmers the acquisition of land is for public purpose i.e., widening of road leading from Mydukur to Jammalamadugu into 4 lane thus the question of exemption of lands from small farmer does not arise. In this connection it is also submitted that the only part of the land of the petitioners was proposed for acquisition but not entire extent on that field. 14. Further it is stated that the District Collector, Kadapa had approved the Draft Notification to acquire an extent of 3.25 acres in Chapad Village for widening of Mydukur to Jammalamadugu Road. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Proddatur proposed to widen the road up to 40 Meters in open areas and 30 Meters in built up area. It is not correct to say that acquisition of land for widening of the road is not in uniform. 15. It is also averred that the requisition department had proposed the land for acquisition from Mydukur to Jammalamadugu covering the following villages having contiguity. (1) S. Mydukur Village in Mydukur Mandal (2)Alladupalli Village in Chapad Mandal (3) Bhadripalli Village in Chapad Mandal (4) Chapad Village in Chapad Mandal (5) Pallavolu Village in Chapad Mandal (6) Thallamapuram Village in Proddatur Mandal (7) Kothapalli Village in Proddatur Mandal. The R & B Department had proposed width of the road up to 40 meters in open areas and 30 meters in built up areas uniformly including the existing road. It is not correct to say that it is proposed to widen the road for 18 meters at one place and 25 meters at another place. The contention of the petitioners that they are supporters of Telugu Desam Party and to cause loss the people in acquiring the land in excess than in other areas is not correct. There is no political involvement in acquisition. The land proposed for acquisition is in the outskirts of Chapad Village but not in built up area. There is no discrimination in acquisition of land in respect of the petitioner. 16. It is further stated that in response to the notice under Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 09-03-2009, the petitioners submitted their objections on 08-04-2009 i.e., on enquiry day to the second respondent wherein, except the third petitioner. The third petitioner submitted his objections on 20-03-2009. All the petitioners except the third petitioner attended the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer on 08-04-2009. The objections were received apart from providing opportunity of personal hearing, on 08-04-2009 by the Land Acquisition Officer. All the objections thoroughly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and forwarded the objections to the District Collector, Kadapa on 20-05-2009 along with his report and also the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, R & B, Proddatur to take a decision. Subsequently, the District Collector, Kadapa on 11-06- 2009 once again considered the objections along with the reports already submitted and passed final orders over ruling the objections. The objections of the petitioners are also rejected by the District Collector, Kadapa in Proceedings No.G1/577/2009 dated 11-06-2009 and approved the Draft Declaration by the District Collector, Kadapa in Proceedings No.G1/577/2009 dated 26-07-2009. The publication particulars are as follows: Sl. No. Details Collector’s proceedings No. Gazettee No.& date Publication Particulars Locality 1st paper 2nd Paper 1. D.D. G1/577/2009, Dt.26-07-2009 945, 28.07.09 01.08.09 Andhra Jyothi Dt. 01.08.09 Sayam- kalam Dt. 01.08.09 As stated above, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer, Jammalamadugu afforded personal hearing of the petitioners except petitioner No.3 on 08-04-2009. Apart from receiving their objections then only forwarded to the District Collector to take a decision. Therefore, petitioners now cannot contend that they were not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard during the course of Section 5 (A) Enquiry. The contentions in this regard are false and baseless. Hence, denied. As a matter of fact, the road in Chapad village is not passing through the built up area. The proposed widening of the road is up to 40 meters in open area and 30 meters in built up area i.e., where structures comes in large number within the limits of town area 17. It is also stated that in 4 (1) Notification the District Collector, Kadapa had authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu to perform the function of the District Collector, Kadapa. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Jammalamadugu had got jurisdiction to conduct enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is in accordance with law. 18. Further it is stated that no objections had been raised in any village except by the petitioners. As the road passes at the outskirts of the village Chapad it is proposed to widen the road to the width of 40 meters. 1. Copies of Notification 4 (1) under the L.A. Act. 2. Copy of Executive Engineer’s letter. 3. Copy of Collector’s Proceedings No.G1/577/2009 dated 01-03- 2009. 4. Copy of Draft Declaration. 5. Objection petitions of the petitioners. In the circumstances explained supra, the request of the petitioner deserves no consideration as the Land Acquisition proposals were initiated in accordance with the rules under the Land Acquisition Act. In the light of the above stated facts and circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition as such, the same is liable to be dismissed by vacating the interim orders dated 12-08-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.21674 of 2009 in W.P.No.16499 of 2009 in the interest of justice. 19. A reply affidavit also had been filed again denying certain of the averments made in the counter-affidavit. Specific stand had been taken that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act are rejected by the Collector without any application of mind. Specific stand had been taken that the widening of the road should be restricted to 30 meters instead of 40 meters as in the case of many other villages from Mydukur to Jammalamadugu. Certain further averments also had been made in this regard at para Nos.4 to 6. Specific stand had been taken that the proposed road widening should be uniform through out and the same should not be arbitrary and inasmuch as different standards had been adopted. The action is offensive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. It is no doubt true that certain specific averments had been made that for certain reasons this village is being discriminated and a further extent is being acquired beyond what is acquired for the purpose. Normally a writ court cannot go into all these factual controversies. However, in the light of the discrimination, which had been averred on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the second respondent is at liberty to examine this aspect. Except making this observation nothing further can be done in view of the limitations of interference in relation to such aspects by a writ court. 21. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J December 9, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16499 of 2009 December 9, 2009