BHIMAVARAPU GIRIDHAR KUMAR REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is one of the possessors of land to an extent of Ac.6-15 cents in R.S.No.40 of Konthanapadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, adjoining NH-9/ NH-65 i.e. road leading from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam. The respondent authorities proposing to widen the said existing two-lane road into four- lane road, when fixed poles in the land of the petitioner without acquiring the same and without following due process of law, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.25911 of 2007 and this Court granted stay and finally disposed of the writ petition recording the statement of the learned standing counsel representing the respondents that by that time no notification had been issued and only on mere apprehension, the petitioner filed the writ petition and further directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession, unless under due process of law. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondents published notification on 1/10/2008 under Sec. 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 proposing to acquire an extent of 6950 Sq.Mts. and to the said notification the petitioner submitted a detailed objections under Sec. 3A(i) of the Act stating that the said notification was issued only to accommodate some rich landlords even by deviating from the norms and in fact, the respondents ought to have laid a straight road without a curve and on account of curve by proposing to lay a road through the land of the petitioner, the very purpose of public safety is affected. It is further stated that the respondents, without giving any opportunity to explain as to the objections raised by the petitioner and without conducting proper enquiry, straightaway issued notification under Sec. 3(D) and also further notification under Sec. 3(G) inspite of the reminder to the 4threspondent about the objections and also requesting to provide personal hearing. However, as the respondent authorities have issued notifications under Ss. 3(D) and 3(G) of the Act without informing the outcome of objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1134 of 2010 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide orders dtd. 24/11/2011 on the ground that the petitioner failed to question the declaration issued under Sec. 3(D) of the Act whereby vesting of the land attained finality. Aggrieved by the above said orders dtd. 24/11/2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2012 and the Division bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide orders dtd. 7/8/2012 declaring the notification dtd. 24/9/2009 issued under Sec. 3(A) and the public notice dtd. 1/5/2010 issued under Sec. 3(G) as invalid and inoperative, however, the Division Bench was pleased to give opportunity to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner intimating the date of hearing and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity.

(3.) The 3rdrespondent- Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that during the course of land acquisition by the 4th respondent- Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada for formation of road from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam Sec. of NH-9, the R.S.No.40 of Konatanapadu village was sub divided into 40/1 and 40/2 and an extent of 6880 Sq.mts. in R.S.No.40/1 belonging to the petitioner was acquired in the year 2008 and later, due to technical reasons, the said Gazette Notification which was issued under Sec. 3A dtd. 1/10/2008 was lapsed. Thereafter, a new notification under Sec. 3A has been issued for an extent of 6880 sq.m. in R.S.No.40/1 of Konatanapadu village in the Official Gazette of India vide S.O.No.29(E), dtd. 2/1/2019 in E.O.No.25, dtd. 3/1/2019 and the substance of it was published in two daily newspapers. It is further stated that the alignment has been finalized basing on the technical, feasibility studies conducted and geometric improvements suggested to the existing by the DPR consultants for the design speed. The incorporation of changes in revenue records by the 4threspondent shall be taken up only after passing the award, but not prior to that. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim directions granted in I.A.No.1 of 2019, dtd. 6/8/2019 and to dismiss the writ petition.