IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16407 and 21000 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 16407 of 2008: Between: 1 G.Jaya Prada Rao W/o.Asok Reddy, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 2 M.Sudhakar Reddy S/o.Ram Reddy, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 3 N.Indrasen Reddy, S/o.Uma Reddy R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 4 U.Uma Rani, W/o.Indrasen Reddy R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 5 P.Dasharadha S/o.Pulla Goud, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 6 P.Kistaiah S/o.Pulla Goud R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 7 T.Anji Reddy S/o.Yella Reddy R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 8 T.Nagi Reddy S/o.Yella Reddy R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 9 Ch.Gouri Shankar S/o.Venkat Rajaiah, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 10 U.Ramulamma W/o.Salaiah, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 11 U.Anjaiah S/o.Lakshmaiah R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 12 T.Kalavathi W/o.Bala Krishna Reddy, R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District 13 P.Mohan Rao, P.Naga Bushanam R/o.Manoharabad(V) Toopran(M) Medak District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The National Highway Authority Of India Castle Hills,Masab Tank Hyderabad 2 The Executive Engineer,Buildings(N.H.Division) Medak District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in illegally and unlawfully seeking to acquire the petitioeners land in interfering with the possession of the petitioners land in Sy.Nos.132,133,135,136,137,516,517, and 519 of Manoharabad (V) Toopran(M) Medak District without following the due process of law as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the said land or dispossess the petitionera and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.V.KINI&CO. ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS WRIT PETITION NO : 21000 of 2008: Between: 1 T. Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 2 T. Ramulu, S/o. Sayanna, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 3 T. Nagaraju, S/o. Ramulu, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 4 Ch. Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Manoharabad Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. 5 K.V. Ashok Reddy, S/o. K.V. Reddy, R/o. 2-6-207, Venkata Reddy Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad. 6 M. Venkateswar Rao, s/o. M. Parvaiah, r/o. Plot NO. 149, Vasavi Nagar Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad. 7 M. Srinivas, S/o. M. Sekaraiah, Flat No. 301, Jyothi Apartments, Mahesh Nagar, E.C.I.L. Post, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet Revenue Division, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Tranport and High Ways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 11 001. 3 The National High Way Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Hyderabad, having its Office at Plot No. 25, Road No. 2, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep by its Project director 4 The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings (N.H. DIVISION), Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ, roder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the notification dt. 25-6-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent to acquire the lands of the petitioners admeasuring 752 Sq.Mts, 1001 sq.mts. 2529 Sq.Mts. 1316 Sq.Mts, 1001 Sq.Mts, 3036 Sq.Mts, 1316 Sq.Mts, 707 Sq.Mts and 810 Sq.Mts in Sy.No. 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 143, 137 and 519 respectively situated at Manoharabad Village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District as illegal, arbitrary and ultravirus of the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 part from being in violation of articles 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.16407 and 21000 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Issuance of a notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, (for short – ‘the Act’), is the subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions. While allegation of highhandedness on the part of the respondents in proceeding with construction, even prior to initiation of acquisition, is made, it is unnecessary for this Court to dwell on this aspect since the notification under challenge is the one issued on 25- 06-2008 under Section 3A(1) of the Act. The said notification is challenged on the following grounds. (1) that the notification does not disclose the public purpose for which the lands mentioned in the schedule to the notification are sought to be acquired; (2) that the lands, adjacent to the lands of the petitioners, belong to the Government and can be better utilized for construction of a toll gate; (3) that, while the ostensible purpose is for construction of a toll gate, in reality the respondents are proceeding to construct a commercial complex thereat; (4) that construction of a toll gate does not fall within the ‘public purpose’ mentioned either in the notification or under the Act. Under section 3C(1) of the Act, any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section. Under section 3C(2) of the Act, every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority, in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof, and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Under section 3D(1) of the Act, where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein, or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and, on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub- section(1) of section 3A. Under sub-section (2) of Section 3D, on the publication of the declaration under sub-section(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. So far as the contentions urged that alternate Government land is available in the vicinity and that the actual purpose for acquisition is not construction of a toll gate, but for building a commercial complex, these are matters which can form part of the objections which the petitioners are entitled to file under section 3C(1) of the Act. The only question which necessitates examination in this writ petition is whether the notification, under Section 3A(1) of the Act, discloses any public purpose, and whether construction of a toll gate would fall within the expression ‘building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof’. It is evident from the notification dated 25-06-2008 that the lands mentioned in the schedule are sought to be acquired for the public purpose of building (widening/four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.7 on the stretch of land between 429.000 km to 447.000 km. The words ‘building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.7’ would include construction and operation of a toll gate. It is not in dispute that it is only from the revenues generated from collection of tolls is this stretch of the road required to be maintained. All that the notification is required to disclose is the public purpose sought to be achieved by acquisition of the land, and not every detail is required to be stipulated therein. Since the notification discloses the public purpose of maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.7, which would bring within its ambit the construction of a toll gate, the notification discloses the public purpose sought to be achieved on acquisition of the lands mentioned in the schedule thereto. Under Section 3A(1) of the Act, where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. Section 3A(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to acquire lands for maintenance, management or operation of the National Highway which would include construction and operation of toll gates also. Therefore the objections aforementioned, in this regard, must fail. With regards the other objections, raised to the notification under section 3A(1) of the Act, as noted hereinabove it is always open to the petitioners herein to submit their objections thereto under Section 3C(1) of the Act. While it is no doubt true that under sub- section (1) of Section 3C the objections are required to be made within twenty one days of the publication of the notification, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider it appropriate to permit the petitioners to submit their objections to the acquisitions, under Section 3C(1) of the Act within four weeks from today. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be entitled for an opportunity of being heard either in person or through a legal practitioner and a notice in this regard shall be issued to them by the competent authority concerned. It is also made clear that till a decision is taken by the Central Government under section 3D of the Act, and a copy thereof is communicated to them, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question. Both the writ petitions stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th December 2008 CVRK Note: copy within one week. B/o CVRK