APHC010574332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29693/2025 Between: 1. SRI. VECHALAPU VENKATARAMANA,, S/O. V. RAMUNAIDU, R/O. H.NO.5-30, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA, L. KOTA, VIZIANAGARAM- 535161. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (MORTH) OFFICE OF BHAVAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS MORTH, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER, 41-29-45A, NEAR KODANDA RAMALAYAM, CHALASANI NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R AND B, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT CANTONMENT ROAD, CANTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P- 535002. 5. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, (L.A.-NH-516B) -CUM- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, LAKKAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL (L. KOTA), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. Page 2 of 7 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue writ order or orders, especially in the form of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 5th and 6th respondents, their deputies and staff, in interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of my property admeasuring 169.4 sq. yards in Sy. No. 388-20, 9th Ward of Lakkavarapukota Revenue, Lakkavarapukota Village and Panchayati, Kothavalasa Sub-Division, Vizianagaram District covered by document no. 2830/2018, dated 20.10.2018, without any valid notice acquisition proceedings, as highly illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my possession except in accordance with law, and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant an interim direction restraining the 5th and 6th respondents, their deputies and staff, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner‟s property admeasuring 169.4 sq. yards in Sy. No. 388-20 gth Ward of Lakkavarapukota Revenue, Lakkavarapukota Village & Panchayati, Kothavalasa Sub-Division, Vizianagaram District covered by document no. 2830/2018, dated; 20.10.2018, without following due process of law, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29693 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue writ order or orders, especially in the form of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 5th and 6th respondents, their deputies and staff, in interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of my property admeasuring 169.4 sq. yards in Sy. No. 388-20, 9th Ward of Lakkavarapukota Revenue, Lakkavarapukota Village and Panchayati, Kothavalasa Sub- Division, Vizianagaram District covered by document no. 2830/2018, dated 20.10.2018, without any valid notice acquisition proceedings, as highly illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my possession except in accordance with law, and pass…” 2. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that respondent No.2 issued a Gazette notification (2022) under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). In the said notification, several lands across Vizianagaram District were notified. 2.1 However, the initial notification did not include the property of the writ petitioner. Following this, a declaration under Section 3D of the Act was published in the Gazette on 03.07.2024, and subsequent proceedings under Section 3G (3) of the Act were issued by respondent No.5. 2.2 Hence, interfering with the petitioner‟s possession of the property without proper notification and acquisition as contemplated under the Act is an infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner pray that the respondent authorities be directed not to acquire his land without following due process of law. 3. Sri Yogesh, learned Central Government counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 and would submit that the land belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired as per the said Gazette. 4. Sri Y. Balaji, learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 4, 5 & 6 and would submit that they will follow due procedure before acquiring the land of the writ petitioner herein. 5 In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs Bimal Kumar Shah 1, highlighted the seven basic rights of private citizen's which constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A” that the state should respect before depriving them of their private property. Which are extracted hereunder: (i) Right to Notice: The state must inform the landowner that it intends to acquire their property. (ii) Right to be Heard: The state must provide a platform for the landowner to raise objections against the acquisition. (iii) Right to a Reasoned Decision: The state must communicate its final decision, along with the reasons for it. (iv) Duty to Acquire Only for Public Purpose: The state must demonstrate that the acquisition is for a genuine public purpose. 1 (2024) 10 SCC 533 (v) Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation: The landowner is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for their property, reflecting its true market value. (vi) Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process: The acquisition process must be conducted efficiently and completed within prescribed timelines. (vii) Right of Conclusion: The process must reach a final conclusion, with the property ultimately vesting with the state. 6. Further stated that the above seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. 7. The seven principles which have been discussed are integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory acquisition of private property. Union and State statutes have adopted these principles and incorporated them in different forms in the statutes provisioning compulsory acquisition of immovable property. The importance of these principles, independent of the statutory prescription have been recognised by our Constitutional Courts and they have become part of our administrative law jurisprudence. 8. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete 9. In the light of the above submissions made by the respondent counsels, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law before acquiring the writ petitioner‟s land. There shall be no order as to costs. Page 6 of 7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.10.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 31.10.2025 B/o TVN 64 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29693 OF 2025 Date: 29.10.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 31.10.2025 B/o TVN