IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 721 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/06/2008 in WP NO : 26245 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Pyla Koteswara Rao S/o.Kanna Rao R/o.Survey No.305/2H, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Pulagam Lakshmi W/o.Veer Reddy R/o.3-315, Babanagar, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Karri Sathi Raju S/o.Soma Raju R/o.Survey No.305/2, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Makadi Bhagyavathi W/o.late Venu Gopala Nayar, R/o.Survey No.265/3/A3, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Tetali Prasad Reddy S/o.Janiki Reddy R/o.Survey No.291/3C & 3D, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Tetali Prasad Reddy S/o.Janiki Reddy R/o.Survey No.291/3C & 3D, Anaparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 The Superintending Engineer (R&B) Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 T. Rama Krishna Reddy (R5 Not Necessary Party) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MRNVIJAY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT APPEAL NO : 738 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/06/2008 in WP NO : 1347 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 T. Rama Reddy, S/o. Golla Reddy, R/o. 7-39, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 M. Brundhavathi, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Door No. 1-5, Railway Station Old Road, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 ch. Venkatrami Reddy, S/o. Chadra Reddy, Door No. 1-2, Railway Station Old Road, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Ch. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Door No. 1-9, Railway Station Old Road, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 A. Veera Raghava Rao, S/o. A.V. Sankara Rao, Door No. 3-552, Baba Nagar, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 S. Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Door No. 3-54, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 7 D. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Door No. 2-273, Gandhinagar, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 8 T. Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. 7-39, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 9 K. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Adi Reddy, R/o. 7-21, Old Town, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 10 D. Sathi Reddy, S/o. Bullaiah, Door No. 2-256 Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 11 D. Sai Baba Reddy, S/o. Bullaiah, Door No. 2-263, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 12 K.V.R. Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Door No. 6-19 Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 13 T. Sura Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy, Door No. 7-82, Golla Reddy Veedhi, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 14 K. Samudra Reddy, S/o. Sura Reddy, Near ILTD Gate, Door No. 3-376, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 15 T. Trinadh Reddy, S/o. Sura Reddy, Near Padma Sreet Theatre, Door No. 2-109, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 16 T. Pushpavathi, W/o. late Devadana Reddy, Near Padma Sree Theatre, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 17 K. Sesha Reddy, S/o. late Appa Rao, Door No. 10-242, Kacheri Street, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 18 T. Sura Reddy, S/o. Jani Reddy, Nuni Venkayamma Gari Street, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 19 T. Atchi Reddy, S/o. Janaki Reddy, NUni Venkayamma Gari Street, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 20 M. Samuel Raju, S/o. M.F. Thomas, D.No. 3-158, Sunandana Street. Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 21 S. Simhachalam, W/o. Gangu Naidu, Sunandana Street. Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 22 T. Rama Reddy, S/o. Sura REddy, D.No. 8-9, Narawell Street, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 23 M.L. Reddy, W/o. Lakshmana Reddy, Baba nagar, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 24 T. Chandra Reddy, S/o. subba Reddy, Baba Nagar, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 25 N. Satyanarayana Reddy, W/o. Rama Reddy, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 26 T. Chella Reddy, S/o. Rama Swamy, Munsub Street, D.No. 9-74, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. 27 S. Ganga Raju, S/o. Venkat Reddy, C/o. Venkateswara Rice Mill, Ananparthy Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The State opf Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildigns, Hyderabad. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 The Superintending Engineer (R&B) Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 T.Atchi Reddy 6 M.Samuel Raju 7 S.Simhachalam 8 T.Rama Reddy 9 M.L.Reddy 10 T.Chndra Reddy (Respondents 5to 10 are not necessary parties) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MRNVIJAY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) In view of the fact that both the appeals arise out of the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 26245 of 2007 and 1347 of 2008, they are heard together. The case of the petitioners-appellants before the learned Single Judge was that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) had not been properly made and the respondent- authorities ought not to have decided to construct a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Vijayawada-Visakhapatnam railway line at L.C.No. 412. According to the petitioners the Railway Over Bridge ought to have been constructed at Railway gate No. 413 as submitted in the petition. After hearing the learned Advocates and upon going through the relevant record, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been conducted properly and the decision taken with regard to construction of Railway Over Bridge at Railway level crossing No. 412 was just and proper. In the circumstances, the aforestated two petitions had been rejected by a common order. Being aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, these two appeals have been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have gone through the relevant records. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants-original petitioners has submitted that before enquiry was initiated in pursuance of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, by G.O.Ms.No. 40, Transport, Roads and Buildings (R.II) Department, dated 17-2-2005 the respondents-authority had already taken a decision to construct a Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No.412. Having taken such a decision, according to the learned Advocate, the enquiry, which was made in pursuance of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act was absolutely an eyewash. According to him, once a decision had been taken to construct the Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No.412, there was no use of making any enquiry and, therefore, the entire proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act are vitiated. Thereafter it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that a counter was filed in the petition by the Revenue Divisional Officer who is a Land Acquisition Officer. According to him, counters/affidavits in reply ought to have been filed by the Collector. He has relied upon the decision rfendered in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai[1] to show that an affidavit in such a case should be filed by the Collector. It has been therefore submitted by him that the learned Single Judge has erred by relying upon the affidavit filed by a person who should not have filed the affidavit. The third submission, which the learned Advocate has made, is with regard to non-furnishing of certain documents by the Revenue department or by the Collector. It is his case that copies of documents, which had been relied upon by the Collector, should have been given to the appellants. Upon hearing the learned Advocate and looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the petitions. So far as the first submission, that the decision to construct the Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No. 412 had been taken much before the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been initiated, is concerned, in our opinion, it was only a tentative decision. Unless such a decision is taken, the question with regard to acquisition of land would not have arisen. It may be noted that unless such a decision is taken for a particular construction and unless administrative sanction with regard to finance etc., is obtained, in our opinion, acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated. Before acquiring a particular land, there must be some plan prepared by the authorities so as to enable the Government authorities to acquire a particular piece of land. In the instant case, it was decided to construct a Railway Over Bridge at Level Crossing No.412. Only after considering several relevant factors, the respondents had decided to construct a Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No.412. In our opinion, there is nothing wrong if such a decision, after considering several relevant factors, is taken at an early stage. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the first submission made by the learned Advocate. So far as the second submission, that the counter/affidavit had been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is concerned, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, the judgment cited by the learned Advocate would not help him. It is pertinent to note that the order of the Collector, which he had passed after considering the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, had been placed on record. We have gone through the said order. In view of the fact that when the said order is on record, we think that it may not be necessary to look at the affidavits, which have been filed to substantiate the contents of the report. As primary document is available with us, we can easily say that the affidavit by the Revenue Divisional Officer or by the Collector would not make any difference in the instant case. The learned Single Judge must have gone through the said order and, therefore, submission of the learned advocate would not help him. With regard to furnishing of a copy of report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the said copy was required to be furnished to the petitioners. The said report might not be relevant, because it pertains to administrative sanction for construction of Railway Over Bridge at a particular place, which was prepared in consultation with the Revenue department. The said document would not be required at the time of considering Section 5-A enquiry under the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, non-furnishing of a copy of the report would not vitiate the proceedings. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, especially when it is for the authorities to decide as to which is the suitable place to construct Railway Over Bridge. Upon perusing all the papers, we find that the concerned authorities had considered the nature of the traffic, opinion of the Road Transport Corporation and the costs to be incurred for construction of Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No. 412 and 413. The authorities had also considered as to how much land was likely to be acquired in the event of construction of Railway Over Bridge at L.C.No. 412. In our opinion, all these relevant factors had been duly considered by the authorities and thereafter the decision was taken to construct the Railway Over Bridge at a particular place. We are of the view that there is no scope for judicial review of the said administrative decision. In the circumstances, both the appeals fail and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 21st July, 2008. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627