*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA + Writ Petition No.25740 of 2007 % 25-01-2008 # M.Yella Reddy and another .. Petitioner Vs. $ The Government of India, Rep.by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Roads, Transport And Highways, (Department of Road, Transport and Highways), Central Secretariat, New Delhi And 2 others .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ! Counsel for Writ Petitioners:- Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.S.Varma ^CASES REFERRED : [1] 2008 (1) ALD 165 2 (2005) 13 S.C.C., 477 3 2007-Tlmad-0-362, 2007 (TLS) 1216172 4 2004-Calhn-4-327, 2004 (TLS) 508278 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.25740 of 2007 Date: 25th January, 2008 Between :- M.Yella Reddy and another .. Petitioner And The Government of India, Rep.by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Roads, Transport And Highways, (Department of Road, Transport and Highways), Central Secretariat, New Delhi And 2 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.25740 of 2007 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 4-12-2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was further extended for a further limited period on 27-12- 2007. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by R.3. 3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for the purpose of convenience, in short, it would be referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 29-8- 2005 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8- 9-2005 is contrary to Section 3-A (1) to (3) and consequential notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.G1-826/04, dated 8-1-2006 published in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3(g) of the Act, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Sy.No.52/2, 53, 54/2, 79, 80, 81 and 55/2 of Chinna Tekuru village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners had taken this Court through the Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H of the Act and also had taken this Court through Section 3J of the Act and would explain that inasmuch as the particulars or details as contemplated by Section 3A of the Act had not specified in the notification, the notification itself is liable to be quashed so far it relates to the lands of the petitioners. The learned Counsel also in particular had taken this Court through the contents of para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that when a request was made by the writ petitioners under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the information, different particulars had been furnished by the self-same authority and in view of the same, serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners and even on this ground, the notification is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would submit that, inasmuch as, such parties are to file objections, unless the particulars are furnished, effective meaningful objections in this regard cannot be raised and hence, the object of these provisions may have to be appreciated and in the light of all the facts and circumstances since serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners because of the non-furnishing of the details or particulars in the notification impugned and also misleading particulars furnished to the petitioners while a request was made under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the notification is liable to be quashed and a fresh notification to be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Counsel for writ petitioners had pointed out that it was specified in the counter affidavit that no compensation had been taken yet. The learned Counsel relied upon several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. On the contrary, Sri S.S.Varma, the learned Counsel representing respondents had taken this Court through the counter affidavit filed by R.3 and would maintain that it cannot be said that the notification is devoid of particulars and in fact, the self-same notification had been called in question by certain other writ petitioners similarly placed relating to other properties and this Court recorded certain findings and had disposed of the said writ petition with suitable directions. In the light of the same, the contention that the notification to be quashed on the ground of the devoid of particulars or omission to mention particulars cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that the objections which were made within time had been considered and certain additional objections made beyond time cannot be considered since objections to be made within a period of 21 days as per Section 3C of the Act being mandatory, such contention also cannot be raised by the writ petitioners that even to belated objections are to be considered. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions would maintain that it may be true that some information had been furnished when a request was made by the 1st writ petitioner under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on a careful analysis, the said particulars are only clarificatory in nature in relation to the particulars which had been furnished in the notification and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that these particulars are misleading or in any way in conflict with what had been furnished in the original notification. Hence, viewed from any angle, especially, in the light of the decision of this Court in C.RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1], the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same may either to be dismissed or to be disposed of on similar lines. The learned Counsel also would submit that inasmuch as the Award was not made, the competent authority would consider even such additional objections if any by passing the Award. The learned Counsel also pointed out that even on passing the Award, the petitioners are having a remedy to invoke the remedy relating to enhancement of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator. 6. It is stated by the writ petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the 1st respondent issued a Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act on 29-8-2005 for the lands situated in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that this notification was published in Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8-9-2005 but not as contemplated under Section 3A (1) to 93) of the Act and that in the said notification, particulars of the lands, structures, trees, tumbs and other particulars were not depicted in accordance with Section 3A (1) to 93) of the Act. It is also stated that in pursuance of the said notification, the writ petitioners filed objections to the 3rd respondent by stating that in the notification their lands are in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that the 3rd respondent having received the objections did not give any opportunity of being heard and no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act. The mis-description of the property sought to be acquired in the notification contravening the provisions of Section 3A (1) to (3) of the Act and those vitiates the notification on the basis of which the acquisition cannot be proceeded with and as such there could be no vesting and therefore the possession could not be resumed on account of absence of the brief description of the owner was prevented from raising meaningful objections, as such, provisions of the land could not be taken. Further it is stated that in pursuance of Section 3A (1), notification issued by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a consequential notification under Section 3G of the Act, which was published in Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 13-1-2007, even in the notification under Section 3G of the Act published by the competent authority i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, they have no detailed the extents of land sought to be acquired in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that the property particulars were not mentioned such as structures, fruit bearing trees, tumbs, cattle shed and other particulars. Therefore, mis- description of the property belongs to the petitioners sought to be acquired as detailed in the notification contravenes the provisions of Section 3G of the Act and thus, violates the notification on the basis of which, the acquisition cannot be proceeded and the possession of the land could not be taken. Further it is stated that the notification issued by the 3rd respondent, under Section 3G vide Rc.No.G1-826/04, dated 8-1-2006, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 3 are vitiated. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent issued a notification vide Rc.No.G1-826/04 and directed the petitioners to appear either in person or through pleader with relevant records to appear before the Joint Collector-cum-Competent authority in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur dated 30-1-2006 at 12.30 p.m., and that they appeared in person before the 3rd respondent and also submitted Xerox copies of pattadar pass books and records of right and also submitted their objections stating that the Sy.No.81, 52, there were existing building, which was let out to Vijaya Bank and fruit bearing trees, structures, cattle sheds, but the same was not depicted in Section 3G Notification issued by the 3rd respondent. The measurements shown in each of survey number are not correct. Further it is stated that particularly Sy.No.52/2 and 54/2 are large in extent acquired than in the notification and also sent objections by way of registered post dated 11-2-2006, but till today, the 3rd respondent had not passed any orders on their objections. Further it is also stated that by invoking Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, they requested the 3rd respondent to furnish the particulars of extents sought to be acquired in Sy.No. 52, 54, 79, 80, 81, 53 and 55 by fix the survey number 55/2 and 54/2 of Chinna Tekuru village, Kalluru Mandal. The structures of three shops, Vijaya Bank building, three tumbes, garden infront of the house, compound wall, fruit bearing trees, etc., are not notified in the impugned notification. Hence, the office of the 3rd respondent furnished the information with incomplete information without furnishing the extent of land to be acquired and also the Vijaya Bank building and three shops have been acquired, but there was no description of the property as to which part of the land was being acquired unless the part of the land sought to be acquired was properly described, the petitioners are unable to understand the extent of acquisition of land, structures, fruit bearing trees etc., and further incomplete and insufficient information furnished by the Office of the 3rd respondent dated 28-9-2007 is contrary to the notification made by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 3A (1) to 93) and Section 3G notification are not tallying with each other. So, the notification issued by the 1st respondent is contrary to Section 3A (2) and 3G notification issued by the 3rd respondent are not in accordance with law and that therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 7. The endorsement made in Rc.No.B5,1593/07, dt.9- 10-2007 reads as hereunder:- “The information which is required by Sri M.Yella Reddy, Ex-Sarpanch, Chinna Tekur village of Kurnool District under Right to Information Act, 2005, the information is herewith enclosed.” The particulars furnished dated 28-9-2007 in Rc.No.G1.3177/2007 reads as hereunder:- Rc.G1.3177/2007 Collector’s Office, Kurnool Dated: 28-9-2007 Sub:- RTI Act 2005 – Kurnool District report – called for – regarding. Ref:- 1. Rc.B5.3763/2007, dt.18-7-2007. -: o0o :- With reference to the petition of Sri M.Yella Reddy, Ex.Sarpanch, Chinnatekur cited in t reference, it is hereby informed that the petitioner may be furnished the particulars of lands, buildings, other structures, fruit bearing trees and the building in which the Vijaya Bank existing and FMB copies of the lands under Right to Information Act 2005 as shown below duly collecting the required fees. Village Sy.No. Structure Valuation Tree Valuation Chinnatekur 55/2 - 79 - Teak – 13 – Rs.4456/- Regu - 1 Neredu -2 Badami-2 Bamboo-12 54/2 - - 53 - - 80 - - 81 Vijaya Bank – Rs.2,13,817/- Daba - Rs.1,74,672/- Wine Shop - Rs. 91,809/- 52/2 Cattle Shed - Rs. 35,636/- & foundation Sd/- S.Rama Swamy For Joint Collector, Kurnool 8. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is averred that the 1st respondent issued a Gazette Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act on 29-8-2005 for the land situated in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 of Chinnatekur (v), Kallur (m) and that the said notification was also published in Telugu News Paper on 8-9-2005 in Eenadu and 9-9-2005 in Indian Express News paper. It is also stated that the allegation by the writ petitioner that in the sand notification, no particulars of the Lands, Structures, Trees, Tombs and other particulars depicted in accordance with Section 3A of the Act is not correct. Since the Central Government of India, New Delhi, while approving the 3D notification, as furnished by the Competent authority and Joint Collector, N.H.7, Kurnool was got approved, wherein it was clearly mentioned with reference to each Sy.No., coming under aquisition under N.H.7, showing Trees, Structures, Tombs etc. But the Government of India while publishing in the Gazette of India, the said 3D Notification, has clearly mentioned that the land plan and other details of the Land covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the Office of the Competent authority. Further the Government of India, New Delhi, have published the said (3A Notification with brief description of the land with or without structures falling within the proposed right of way of N.H.7 from K.M.203 to 293 ( Hyderabad – Bangalore Section) in Kurnool District in the State of A.P.). Further it is stated that the writ petitioner without approaching the competent authority and Joint Collector (A), N.H.7, Kurnool and inspecting the Land Plans and other details of Lands covered under this Notification has simply alleged that no such details have been depicted. Hence, the allegations are baseless. Further it is stated that in pursuance of this office notification published news papers calling for the objection, if any over the lands under the acquisition, the writ petitioner filed an objection before the competent authority and Joint Collector on 22-9-2005, stating that the land bearing Sy.No.79 to an extent of 0.27 cents of Chinnatekur (v), Kallur (M) was published as Government land and requested to verify the Revenue records and correct the said land as private land by sending this objection petition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool vide this office Rc.G1.1521/2005, dated 28-9-2005, it was requested to take necessary action for submitting the correct 3D in regard to objection of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 3D notification was got approved by the Central Government in Chinnatekur village, duly showing Sy.No.79 as private land, but writ petitioner never filed any objections in regard to his other Survey numbers such as 52/2, 54/2, 80, 81 and 55/2 of Chinnatekur village as contemplated by him in his Writ Petition. As there was no legal objections put forth by the petitioner during 2005, there was no necessity to enquire the petitioner under Section 3(c) of the Act. Hence, the plea of the writ petitioner that the acquisition of his lands cannot be proceeded with and as such there could be no vesting and the possession could not be resumed on account of absence of the brief description, cannot be complied with since the Gazette Notification itself is a self-explanatory one. It is also stated that in pursuance of 3D(1) notification issued by the 1st respondent by way of publication in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005, the 3G Declaration was published in Vaartha news paper on 13- 1-2006 by the competent authority, showing the details of land and the extent under acquisition in Sy.No.55/2, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 & 52/2 of Chinnatekur village along with other survey numbers of Kallur Mandal and Kurnool District. The contention of the petitioner that the property particulars were not mentioned such as Structures, Fruit bearing trees, tombs, Cattle sheds etc., does not arise, since 3A notification was published with brief description of the land with or without structures falling within a proposed right of way of N.H.7 from K.M.203 to 293 (Hyderabad – Bangalore Section) in Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further it is stated that it is a fact that the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and Joint Collector (L.A.) N.H.7 in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur on 30-11-2006, and submitted Xerox copies of Pattadar Pass Book and Records of Rights and also submitted his objections stating that Sy.No.81 and 52 are covered by existing building which was let out to Vijaya Bank having fruit bearing trees, structures, cattle sheds. The details of the above survey numbers were mentioned in this office 3D schedule. Further the measurements shown in each survey number are found to be corrected and the said fact were also got corroborated by Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kurnool. Since the petitioner had not given his claims in support of the Register documents for payment of Land compensation so far, the lands belonging to the petitioner was not acquired by passing an Award. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that his objections were not considered is baseless and not maintainable. It is stated that the petitioner had requested the 3rd respondent the particulars of lands, buildings, other structures, fruit bearing trees and the building in which Vijaya Bank existing in Chinnatekur village, under Right to Information Act, 2005 and accordingly, the petitioner was furnished with the required information. The following are the survey number wise with extents under acquisition under N.H.7:- Sy.No. Extent Structure Value Tree Value 55/2 0.01 - - 53/1 0.01 - - 54/2 0.09 - - 80 0.04 - - 81 0.12 Vijaya Bank – Rs.213817/- Daba-Rs.174672/- Wine shop– Rs.91,809/- - 52/2 0.13 Cattle Shed and Foundation Rs.35,636/- - 79 0.27 0.61 - Teak – 13 Regu - 1 Neredu- 2 Badam – 2 Bamboo-12 Rs.4,456/- Further the contention of the petitioner that the information furnished by the Office of the 3rd respondent dt.28-9-2007 is contrary to the Notification made by the respondents 1 & 3 under Section 3A and 3G are not tallying with each other is not correct. It is also stated that the details of survey numbers as per 3D Notification which was got approved by the Government of India and published in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005 are taken as basis for acquisition of lands under N.H.7 and passing of Award and hence, there would not be any contrary or variation under 3A & 3D & 3G notifications issued by the 3rd respondent are in accordance with law. It is also stated that the 3A notification published in Gazette of India, dt.29- 8-2005 and its publication in Eenadu Telugu news paper on 8-9-2005 and also the 3D notification approved by the Government of India and publication in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005 and its publication in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3G of N.H.Act, 1956, are not contrary to Section 3A (1) as pointed out by the petitioner and hence, the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of his lands of Chinnatekur village which are coming under N.H.7 Land Acquisition are baseless and not maintainable, since the 3rd respondent had taken every step to protect the interest of each and every land owner coming under acquisition. It is also stated that in Chinnatekur village, as against the total extent of Ac.26.44 cents, an extent of Ac.16.23 cents of land had already been acquired by passing an Award in Award No.18/2007, dt.27-7-2007, leaving a balance of Ac.10.21 cents inclusive of petitioners lands of Ac.0.61 cents, which is yet to be acquired. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dealing with request for obtaining information reads as hereunder:- “(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to -- (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contracting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,--- (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii)the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable, but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.” 11. This Court in C.Ramachandra Reddy (1st supra) observed at paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 as hereunder:- “The Act, Act 48/1956 is an Act to provide for declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the Act deals with Definitions and Section 3(a) defines ‘competent authority’ as “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ‘competent authority’ means any person or authority authorized by the Central Government, necessary notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification”. Section 3B of the Act deals with Power to enter for survey, etc. Section 3C of the Act deals with Hearing of objections. Section 3D of the Act deals with Declaration of acquisition. Section 3E of the Act deals with Power to take possession. Section 3F of the Act deals with Right to enter into the land where land has vested in the Central Government. Section 3G of the Act is another important provision which deals with Determination of amount payable as compensation and the said provision reads as hereunder : (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section