THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 10269 of 2010 O r d e r: Petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 while petitioner No.2 is a partnership firm. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing life saving drugs. The petitioners purchased an extent of Acs. 2.06 guntas and Acs. 2.08 guntas respectively, situated in Sy. No. 575 of Sivareddyguda, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deeds dated 30.01.1982 and 05.04.1983. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 wants to lay a bypass road at Ghatkesar leading to Warangal, and for that purpose respondent No.2 issued notification under Section 3-C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 27.11.2009, for acquisition of the land in question. Questioning the said notification and to cancel the same, the petitioners state that they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 980 of 2010, and this Court by order dated 07.01.2010 disposed of the same directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider their objections. When respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not consider their objections, and issued further notification under Section 3-G of the Act, on 15.04.2010, the petitioners state that they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 9305 of 2010, and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court therein, the petitioners stated that the respondents passed orders and served a copy of the same to their counsel on 22.02.2010. Now it is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 without considering their objections rejected their request to spare their lands from acquisition, particularly when earlier an extent of Acs.0.13 guntas of land was acquired. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to set aside the orders dated 22.02.2010 passed by respondent No.2, namely the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, and to cancel the acquisition notification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. No doubt, the petitioners are engaged in the manufacturing of life saving drugs, and earlier an extent of Acs. 0.3 guntas of land was acquired, but that by itself cannot be a ground to spare their lands from acquisition, for the reason that the land is being acquired for a public purpose. Though the petitioners contend that the acquisition of their land in question would affect the borewell and dislocate all the ancillary activities and cause considerable damage, the fact remains, as is evident from the impugned order, respondent No.2 got the matter enquired through the Tahsildar, Ghatkesar, who having conducted enquiry reported that a store-room, animal house, temporary toilets, borewell etc, are existing in an extent of about 874 Sq. yds, and that remaining extent of Acs.1.27 of land is available for acquisition and that no damage to the existing factory would be caused. At any rate, it is stated that the structures would be valued and estimated by the Technical Department and appropriate compensation paid. Admittedly, the land is acquired for public purpose, i.e. for laying of a by-pass road. It is not just the land of the petitioners is being acquired. Who so ever’s land comes under the by-pass road plan would be acquired, and it not being the case of the petitioners that only their land is being acquired and that of others is spared and that the proposed acquisition notification is not as per the original by-pass road plan or has been altered/changed at the instance of some others, the impugned acquisition notification cannot be cancelled. At any rate, merely because the petitioners are engaged in manufacturing of drugs, it cannot be said that their lands should be spared from acquisition, particularly when the land is being acquired for public purpose and not to serve a particular individual’s case and for which acquisition due process of law will be followed and appropriate compensation paid. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to either interfere with the impugned order or cancel the impugned acquisition notification. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th October, 2010 KSR