THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12251 OF 2010 Dated: 28.06.2010 Between
1. Male Rangareddy and 14 others. … Petitioners And
1. Govt. of India, rep. by its Secretary, Roads, Transport and Highway, New Delhi., And 4 others. ..
Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12251 OF 2010 ORDER:
The petitioners claim to be the owners of small extents of house sites and agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.573, 514, 796, 576, 578, 796, 577, 574, 511 & 512 at Pillalamarri Shivar, Raiyani Gudem, Suryapet Revenue village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District abutting Hyderabad – Vijayawada National Highway No.9.
They filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in acquiring their properties situated in the above survey numbers for the purpose of widening/four-laning of N.H.9 from KM 126/750 to KM 190/600 is arbitrary and illegal.
It is contended that in pursuance of the Public Notice under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) appeared in Hindu daily, dated 21.10.2009, the petitioners submitted their objections before the Tahsildar, Suryapet Mandal. It is alleged that without considering the said objections the notification under Section 3-D of the Act, dated 24.12.2009 was published declaring that the land in question should be acquired.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that by notification dated 18.04.2007 issued under Section 3 (a) of the Act, the Central Government appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet as the competent authority to perform the functions of such authority under the Act. Thereafter, a notification under Section 3-A of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 24.09.2009 declaring the intention to acquire the lands in Pillalamarri village. The said notification was also published in two local newspapers namely The Hindu and Andhra Prabha (vernacular language) dated 21.10.2009 inviting objections from the persons interested within 21 days.
However, the petitioners failed to file any objections. Accordingly, Section 3-D notification was published in the Gazette, dated 24.12.2009 as well as local dailies dated 3.2.2010 and 4.2.2010. Thereafter the land vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Subsequently, an award has been passed and the payment of compensation is under process by the 2nd respondent. Thus it is contended that the entire procedure for acquisition of the land was followed in accordance with law.
Neither a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner nor any other material could be placed before this Court to contradict the stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. In the light of the uncontradicted averments in the counter-affidavit supported by the copies of the notifications the contention of the petitioner that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Act is unfounded and cannot be accepted.
So far as the objection raised by the petitioners with regard to the alignment is concerned, it is explained in the counter-affidavit that the present alignment was proposed by the competent technical persons who were appointed by the National Highways Authority of India based on various technical aspects and the same was finalized based on the geometric requirements of the Highway. The further contention raised by the petitioners that the respondents ought to have acquired the land on equal width on both sides of the road is also without substance. Even if the petitioners are put to inconvenience by the impugned acquisition, being a matter of policy the same warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs.
G. ROHINI, J Dt. 28.06.2010 gbs Note : CC in one week. (B/O) KLP