THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.964 OF 2003 09.12.2010 Between: N.V.Manohara Rao …Petitioner AND The District Collector, E.G.District, Kakinada, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.964 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Ravulapalem. He is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.0.55 in survey No.185/5A2, which he purchased under registered sale deed dated 24.08.1983 from one K.Veer Reddy. He gifted Acs.0.13 cents to his daughter at the time of marriage and retained the balance portion. He filed the instant writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.0.03 cents for the purpose of widening NH5 from two- lane road into four-lane road between KM 152 to 164 (Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam). The petitioner’s case is that second respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) issued a notice under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) on 05.02.2002 in Vartha Daily Newspaper calling interested persons to participate in award enquiry. The petitioner’s name was also found mentioned. The petitioner approached respondents and received objections. He contended that the issue of notice under Section 3G without preceding draft notification under Section 3A, enquiry under Section 3C and declaration under Section 3D is illegal and arbitrary. His objections were not considered. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition and obtained an interim order prohibiting respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.0.03 cents. The RDO filed counter affidavit. The allegation that petitioner’s name was not included in the notification under Section 3A of the NH Act is not denied. It is, however, stated that notification under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act was published in Telugu and English newspapers on 21.09.2001 calling for objections. This was followed by a declaration under Section 3D(1) published in Gazette on 14.01.2002. While preparing Section 3D, having been noticed that certain lands were not included by oversight in Section 3A, all such lands were included in the declaration under Section 3D. It is also alleged that the petitioner participated in the award enquiry. However, the RDO states that project has been implemented and petitioner’s land is no more required for the purpose of widening the road. The Deputy General Manager and Project Director of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) constituted under National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (NHAI Act) filed counter affidavit. The averments therein are similar to that of the RDO’s counter affidavit. The Deputy General Manager also admitted that, “since road has already been laid and the lands of the petitioner is not required at this stage for road widening, the writ petition is misconceived. The counsel for petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (LA) and Sri K.Giridhar representing NHAI made their submissions. NHAI contends that there is no provision in NHAI Act for denotifying the lands proposed for acquisition and therefore, no such withdrawal notification can be issued. The submission is misconceived. The question of denotifying would arise when there is notification proposing to acquire the land of the owner. In this case, admittedly there was no such proposal when the notification under Section 3A was published on 21.09.2001. Mere inclusion of the petitioner’s land in the notification under Section 3D does not in any manner make the notification under Section 3A valid insofar as petitioner’s land is concerned. It is well settled that while depriving a citizen of immovable property for public purpose, the law is to be followed without any relaxation. If a declaration is given under Section 3D(1) without there being a notification under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, the former would not validate the acquisition. I n Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v Mohd.Shafi[1], on a requisition by the appellant, Mandsaur District Collector issued DN under Section 4(1) of the Act to acquire 2.298 hectares of land situated at bus stand for construction of buildings and shops under self- financing schemes. The same was followed by DD under Section 6(1) of the Act. The acquisition was successfully impugned before the High Court on the ground that DN under Section 4 was vague and invalid for non-compliance with mandatory requirements of the Act. The High Court held that invocation of the powers under Section 17 of the Act was arbitrary, and that the DN without any details was vague. Confirming the findings of the High Court, Supreme Court after referring to Narendrajit Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh[2] and Munshi Singh v Union of India[3], held that DNs impugned therein are vitiated on account of being vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. It is apt to excerpt paragraph 8 of SCC. It is settled law that the process of acquisition has to start with a DN issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of DN under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any DN which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object of issuing a DN under Section 4 of the Act is twofold. First, it is a public announcement by the government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the government for the “public purpose” mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The DN has to be published in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity is afoot. The DN is, thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the “public purpose” for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the “locality” where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the “interested” persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass the non- suitability of the land for the alleged “public purpose” also. If a DN under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not only vitiates the DN, but also renders all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad. (emphasis supplied) I n S.B.Kirloskar v the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority[4], a Division Bench of this Court held as under. The publication of DD giving the particulars of lands to be acquired is conclusive evidence of necessity of the land for public purpose. It does not, however, mean that without therebeing a DN under Section 4(1) of the Act to enable the owner to know the public purpose and intention, the Government can straightaway issue a DD under Section 6 of the Act. Any such interpretation would render Section 4(1) otiose. Such an interpretation cannot be adopted by the Court. The legislative intention is to make the public purpose conclusive must be done in two stages. First, notifying the intention of the Government and then declaring conclusively such intention. I n Competent Authority v Bangalore Jute Factory[5], Supreme Court considered the question whether non-compliance with the provisions of Section 3A(2) of NH Act renders the notification invalid? Holding in favour of the land owners, it was held that unless the land is included in notification under Section 3A(1) of NH Act, mere inclusion of the land in subsequent stages would not cure the defect. The observations relevant are as follows. So far as the question whether the impugned notification meets the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land is concerned, we have already shown that even though plot numbers of land in respect of each mouza are given, different pieces of land are acquired either as whole or in part. Wherever the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger piece of land, there is no description as to which portion was being acquired. Unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired, the petitioners would be unable to understand the impact of acquisition or to raise any objection about user of the acquired land for the purposes specified under the Act or to make a claim for compensation. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning. In our view, the impugned notification fails to meet the statutory mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such cases is that the acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lose. The impugned notification in this case is, therefore, not in accordance with the law. Applying the settled principles relevant to the case, it must be held that inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the declaration under Section 3D would not validate the notification under Section 3A of NH Act. Therefore, in the eye of law, there is no compliance with the “procedure established by law” insofar as petitioner’s land is concerned, and therefore, a further denotification is not required. In any event, the RDO and Deputy General Manager cum Project Director admitted that the widening of the road has been completed and petitioner’s land is no more required. In view of the above statement, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.0.03 cents in Rs.No.185/5A2 situated at L.Polavaram Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, West Godavari District was not validly proposed for acquisition under NH Act and unless and until the procedure established by law is followed strictly, the petitioner’s right to enjoy the property cannot be interfered. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.12.2010 Pln [1] (1992) 2 SCC 168 [2] (1970) 1 SCC 125 : AIR 1971 SC 306 [3] (1973) 2 SCC 337 : AIR 1973 SC 1150 [4] 2010 (6) ALT 272 [5] 2005 (8) SCJ 728