IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7963 of 2011 BETWEEN Gudur Raji Reddy and another. ... PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. S.S. VARMA S.C. for NHA GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned standing counsel for the National Highway Authority of India and the learned Government Pleader for land acquisition and with their consent the writ petition itself is being disposed of at the stage of vacate stay petition. 2. Petitioners claim that they the owners and possessors of different extents of land in Sy.No.323 of Gudur village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, as described in para 4 of the affidavit. Petitioners, however, were aggrieved by the notification issued by NHAI for acquiring the land for the purpose of 4/6 laning of National Highway No.202. The notification under Section 3(A)(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 28.10.2010 was published in local newspapers on 22.11.2010 but according to the petitioners it did not specify the purpose for which the land was acquired and the petitioners later learnt that their lands are being acquired for construction of toll plaza and to develop amenities therein. Petitioners claim that they have filed objections and as they were not being considered, they approached this Court earlier in WP.No.31230 of 2010 wherein this Court by order dated 27.12.2010 directed the third respondent therein i.e. the competent authority – Land Acquisition Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders on petitioners objections. The competent authority has thereafter considered the objections of the petitioners, who were given personal hearing also on 27.12.2010 and thereafter, in consultation with the Project Director, the objections raised by the petitioners were considered and rejected under the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 07.03.2011. Petitioners, therefore, have questioned the said proceedings in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was not at all necessary to locate the toll plaza only at the petitioners’ lands, referred to above, when, in fact, most suitable and adequate Government land is available at a distance of about 800 m from the lands of the petitioners on the same NH. One of the grievances of the petitioners raised herein is that the objections raised by them have not been considered by the competent authority. It is also alleged that already substantial extents of land are acquired by the respondents and as such, the acquisition, in question, ought not to be allowed. The objections of the petitioners were considered and decided by the competent authority with the following remarks: Sl. No. Name of the objection petition file Contents of petition Remarks 1. Guduru Raji Reddy, Guduru Anjireddy and (2) others That vast extent of government land is available abutting the National Highway in Sy.No.339 and 340 which is within the vicinity of the land and requested to change the alignment The Project Director has informed that the change of location of toll plaza is not possible as the chainage has been already finalized in the concession agreement entered between the concessionaire and Govt. of India. Generally, the DPR Consultants propose the location of Toll Plaza based on Technical requirements and any change in chainage could lead to legal complications. Hence the requeset of the petitioners is not considered. 2. Sri G. Prabhakar Reddy, Proprietor of S u d h a Engineering Workers They are manufacturing M.S Pipe which are used for drinking water supply and irrigation facilities like Warangal Water supply and Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and nearly 80 to100 workers employees are working in their factory and due to this acquisition remaining land is not sufficient to run their factory activities a n d requested to change alignment, 4. With regard to the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the location of toll plaza, it has been categorically stated by the NHAI in their counter that the requirement of 4 laning includes land acquired for construction of toll plaza as it is part of the scheme of road widening and it is not a separate project delinked from road widening. It is also stated that the toll plaza is not a commercial complex but is part of the project included right from the beginning and is also included in the concession agreement, which is finalized on build, operate and transfer basis. Further, the location of the toll plaza is included right at the beginning from DPR stage and is not an after thought and the said DPR work was completed as early as in 2009 and it is not possible nor technically feasible to depart from the design and the location including the alignment already fixed by the experts, consultants, as above. 5. To the extent of petitioners’ allegation with regard to the Government land etc., the Land Acquisition Officer also has filed a counter wherein the existence of Government land at a little distance from the lands of the petitioners is not disputed but it is stated that the construction of the toll plaza is based on techno-feasibility report and was planned for establishing at KM 38/100, which location falls in Sy.Nos.275, 276, 278 and 323 and except the petitioners, who are owners of the lands in Sy.No.323, other land holders have not raised any objection for the said toll plaza. To the extent of petitioners’ allegation with regard to availability of Government land, the counter affidavit states as follows: “Petitioners are under the wrong impression that the Toll Plaza is a commercial complex of private persons and can be constructed at anywhere without reference to techno-feasibility report of DPR consultants, which is not tenable. The toll plaza cannot be shifted from the present location.” 6. The response of the respondents, as above, completely answers the contentions of the petitioners. Apart from that the alignment of the design fixed by the DPR consultants as in the present case were also considered by this Court and upheld in number of decisions including the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in BLUEPARK SEAFOODS (P) LTD. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT[1] to which I am also a party as well as WP.No.12473 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011. In view of that, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified in interfering with the technical feasibility and design of the national highway project finalized by the respondents. The petitioners’ lands appear inevitable for the purpose of acquisition and as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 30, 2011 DSK [1] 2011 (4) ALD 494