i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAa AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 537 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in W.P.No.29343 of 2023, dt. 10-04-2025, on the file of the High Courts Between: 1. Seelam Praveen Kumar, s/o. Late S. Venkateswarlu Age 35 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. D.No.9-3-1/1, Near BPCL Petrol Bunk, Mydukur Main Road, Chennampalli Village, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 2. Seela Lakshmi, W/o. Seelam Praveen Kumar, Age 31 House wife, R/o. D.No.9-3-1/1, Near BPCL Petrol Bunk, Mydukur Main Road, Chennampalli Village, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 3. Seela Padmavathi, W/o. Late S. Venkateswarlu Age 58 years, Occ House wife, R/o. D.No.9-3-1/1, Near BPCL Petrol Bunk, Mydukur Main Road, Chennampalli Village, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 4. Seela Lokesh, S/o. Late S. Venkateswarlu, Age 31 Employee, R/o. D.No.9-3-1/1, Near BPCL Petrol Bunk, Mydukur Main years, Occ years, Occ ( Road, Chennampalli Village, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 5.; Thulasi Nagaraju, S/o. Late Pedda Subbarayudu, Age 45 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.11-1-42, Main Bazar, Porumamilla Road, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 6. Thulasi Lalitha, W/o. Thulasi Nagaraju, Age 40 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. D.No.11-1-42, Main Bazar, Porumamilla Road, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 7. Vootla Narasamma, W/o. V. Venkata Subbaiah, Age 55 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. D.No.25-192, Sanjeev Nagar, Nandyal Town, Nadyal District-518501. 8. V. Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Late Narayana Age 60 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.25-192, Sanjeev Nagar, Nandyal Town, Nadyal District- 518501. 9. Thangi Sreerama Sharma, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Age 71 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.2-2-18, Ammavari Shala Street, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. Rallapati Peeramma, W/o. Peeraiah Age 60 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Thottigaripalli Village, Badvel Municipality, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District-516 227. 10. < ...Appellants/ Petitioners,^ AND 1. The National Highways Authority of India, G-5/G-6, Sector 10, Dwaraka Nagar, New Delhi. 2. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhavan Parliament Street, New Delhi. € ' 3. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Competent Authority (LA) and Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Revenue Divisinal Officer, Badvel Revenue Division, YSR Kadapa District. 6. The Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondents/Respondents^ lA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of order, dt. 10-04-2025 in W.P.No.29343 of 2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court.-—^ lA NO: 3 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 to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands by demolition of the petitioners structures or otherwise situated in Sy.Nos.1689, 1689/2, 1667, 1668, 1661 1662, 1680, 1683/2, 233 & 234 are concerned situated with in the limits of Chennampalli Village, Badvel Municipality and Mandal of YSR Kadapa District. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. G VENKATA REDDY. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: SRI S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: APHC010231212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) • I T-Wh SK [3525] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 537/2025 Between: ...APPELLANT(S) Seelam Praveen Kumar and Others AND The National Highways Authority Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2.Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3.S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The appellants herein are the owners and possessors of various extents of land in Chennampalli Village, Badvel Mandal of YSR Kadapa District. These lands abut National Highway No.67. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued a gazette notification on 06.07.2018, initiating the 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537 of 2025 process for acquisition of lands for widening the said National Highway. Subsequently, a notification was issued on 19.05.2021, under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), for acquisition of about 262.03 Hectares of land, including the lands of the appellants. The appellants herein had filed their objections on 15.09.2021. Thereafter, the appellants had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.26670 of 2021, contending that their objections were not being considered by the Land Acquisition Authorities. This Writ Petition disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 17.11.2021, directing the Acquisition Authorities to consider the objections,of the appellants, and pass appropriate orders on the objections of the appellants, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3C of the Act. was 2. The primary objection of the appellants v/as that land on both sides of N.H.No.67 was being acquired, in equal width for the entire stretch of 44 KM of the concerned package, while only land on the right side of the road was being acquired, for a stretch of 1.1 KM. The complaint of the appellants was that the system of acquisition of land on both sides, had been given a go by and the acquisition of land for a stretch of 1.1 KM, in which the appellants’ land is situated, had been undertaken for the purpose of benefitting the person on the left side of the National Highway. It is also contended that this was done to benefit the owner of a petrol pump, who was an ex-representative of the people. 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 The appellants again approached this Court, by way of 3. W.P.No.29343 of 2023, contending that the authorities were taking up road widening and laying road for the National Highway, solely on the side of the appellants, and the same was illegal and arbitrary. The appellants raised two primary contentions. Firstly, the 4. widening of the National Highway only on one side for a limited stretch of 1.1 KM, while acquiring the land on both sides for the remaining 44 KM was an arbitrary exercise, conducted to benefit the owners of the land on the other side of the road. Secondly, the further steps of taking over possession of the land and fixing compensation could not have been done without disposing of the objections raised by the appellants. The Acquisition Authorities filed their respective counter affidavits. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that an opportunity of personal hearing on 29.12.2021 was given and the same had been utilised by some of the appellants herein. Subsequently, the objections raised by the appellants were rejected, by way of an order, dated 19.02.2022, which was communicated to the appellants. Thereafter, enquiry, under Section 3G of the Act, for the purpose of fixing compensation had been taken up and an award had been passed on 18.09.2022. A large number of affected persons are said to have received the compensation so awarded. The Acquisition Authorities also admitted that the appellants herein had not participated in the enquiry, under 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR; J W.A.No.537of2025 Section 3G of the Act, nor have they received any compensation, that is said to have been vested v\/ith the competent authority. 6. The appellants have filed reply affidavit, stating that the Authorities had not communicated the said order of rejection, dated 19.02.2022 and consequently, it would have to be held that there was no order passed at all. 7. It may also be noted that the appellants had raised various complaints, relating to the suitability of acquiring land only on one side of the National Highway. They have raised various objections, including the objections that the change of alignment leads to zig-zag laying of the National Highway; construction of a bridge across a water body, down the land. requiring the widening on both sides of the National Highway, whereas the widening of the National Highway only on the side of the appellants would cause further changes in the alignment etc. 8. The Acquisition Authorities had contended that, in the normal course, land on the either side of the Highway would have been acquired, but in the present case, acquisition was restricted to one side because of the existence of a petrol pump, a government hospital, a burial ground, etc, which would have caused huge expenditure for acquisition, whereas the house of one of the appellants was existing on the other side of the Highway. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, had held that 9. ^the objections raised by the appellants could not be gone into by a Court. 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is shown to be extremely arbitrary. The learned Single Judge also held, after referring to various Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that in such circumstances, the discretion to decide on the feasibility of widening of the Highway as well as the acquisition of land would be best left to the experts in the field. On the question of service of the order, dated 19.02.2022, the learned Single Judge took the view that it would have to be held that there was service of notice as the land owners, other than the appellants, who had objected to the acquisition of lands, had accepted the compensation paid out and the same could have been done only when they had notice of rejection of the objections. On this basis, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 10.04.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 10. Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned 11. Single Judge ought to have gone into the objections, on merits, relating to the asymmetrical acquisition of land only on one side. He would further submit that the view of the learned Single Judge, that the order, dated 19.02.2022, had been communicated to the appellants, was incorrect and such assumption could not have been made. The learned Senior Counsel would reiy upon a Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, 6 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in the case of B. Giridhar vs. Union of lndia\ to contend that non-service of an .order would essentially mean that no such order has been passed. He would contend that once the process of acquisition had been stalled at the stage of Section 3D, the question of progressing further to Section 3G for fixing of compensation would not arise and the entire process from the stage of Section 3D would have to be redone. 12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for the respondents, would, on the other hand, contend that the prayer in the Writ Petition was restricted to a direction that the National Highway should be widened on both sides and no steps were taken to amend the prayer in the Writ Petition, even after the order, dated 29.02.2022, had been served on the appellants, in the course of hearing of the Writ Petition. He would further submit that in such circumstances, the appellants cannot assail the order, dated 19.02.2022. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Others^, to contend that even if there is patent illegality in the acquisition process, the Court would have to balance public interest against the intervention of any person taking on such illegality. He would point out that the widening of the National Highway has been completed for the entire stretch of 44 KM, except ^2012 (6) ALT 651 (DB) Wronline 2005 SC 822 7 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 the 1.1 KM stretch which is under dispute. He would submit that it would not be practicable to change the alignment of the National Highway at this stage and any such change would result in huge expenditure of public money. He would submit that in such circumstances, the public interest would have to be given precedence over the private interests of the appellants. 13. The appellants have raised pertinent objections on the merits of the widening of the road. These objections have been considered in the order dated 19.02.2022. The gist of the order essentially is that acquisition of land on both sides would be more expensive than acquisition of land only on the side of the appellants. This view is not on the basis of the technical observations or issues which have a technical import. However, the fact remains that acquisition is itself a forcible taking over of land by exercising the right of eminent domain by the State. In such circumstances, this Court would only be looking at whether the procedure required under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been violated and whether adequate compensation is being given to persons who lose their property under this process. It is settled law, that in such a situation, the opinion of this Court, would have to give way to the discretion exercised by the Authority, unless the said discretion is so arbitrary, as to require the intervention of this Court. In the present case, this Court is not in a position to hold that the view of the Authorities that acquisition of land only on the side of the appellants would cause less expense to the public exchequer, is so arbitrary as to set aside the 8 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 acquisition. In the circumstances, we affirm the view of the learned Single Judge. 14. The provisions of the Act set up a step by step process of acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of widening of National Highways. Under these provisions, a notification has to be issued under Section 3A by the Central Government stating that it proposes to acquire the lands for the purpose of construction of National Highways. Thereafter, a survey is to be conducted under Section 3B, for setting out the extent of land that is required to be taken over. After such survey, a notice under Section 3C has to be issued to all persons, interested in the lands which are proposed to be acquired, and all such persons have a right to file objections as to the use of the lands. These objections are to be considered under Section 3D and informed to the Central Government by a competent authority. Thereupon, the Central Government, depending on the views taken by the competent authority, would carry out publication of declaration that the land vests with the Central Government. After these steps are completed, the possession of the land is to be taken under Section 3E and consequent proceedings are to be initiated, under Section 3G, for determining the amounts payable as compensation and the same has to be paid to the affected persons in accordance with Section 15. 3H of the Act. 9 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 In the present case, the steps, to be taken under Section 3A to 16. Section 3C, are said to have been completed by passing an order of rejection. dated 19.02.2022. However, there is a dispute as to whether the order, dated 19.02.2022, had been served on the appellants or not. The consequence of non-service of such an order had been considered by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy Vs. Union Government of India & Others^. The Division Bench had held as follows; In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh (7) AIR 1961 SC 493, and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another (8) AIR 1963 SC 395 and in several other decisions, the Supreme Court consistently declared the principle that an un-comniunicated adminstrative order is inoperative. Section 3-C(2) enjoins the competent authority to provide an objector an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to either allow or disallow the objections by an order. Since hearing of objections to the process of acquisition is a valuable right, an objector is entitled to communication of an order passed by the competent authority rejecting his objections and the reasons recorded therefor. Since the order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the 4^^ respondent was not communicated to the petitioner there is no disposal in law of the petitioner’s objections by the competent authority under Section 3-C(2) of the Act. ” 15. ^2012 (6) ALT 651 (D.B.) 10 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537of2025 In the present case, the appellants have made a categorical assertion, in the Writ Petition, that they have not received the order, dated 19.02.2022. In reply, the competent authority states that the order had been passed and communicated to the appellants. However, the said counter affidavit, filed by them, does not give any details as to the date of service of the order or the method of service of the order. The appellants, in their reply to the said counter affidavit, have again categorically denied the service of the said order. The Acquisition Authorities have not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate that the order had been served on the appellants. In such circumstances, this Court has no reason to accept the contentions of the Acquisition Authorities that the order had been served on the appellants. 17. Once there is no service of the order, dated 19.02.2022, the consequence laid down by the Division Bench in Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy(stated supra) would follow. Therefore, it must be held that 18. there is no disposal of the objections filed by the appellants on the use of the land. In the normal circumstances, this Court would call upon the Acquisition Authorities, to initiate the process of acquisition, again from the 19. stage of Section 3C of the Act. However, the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barangcre Jute Factory (stated supra) needs to be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barangore Jute Factory had given a finding that the entire 20. 11 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.537Ojf2025 acquisition process commencing from the notification under Section 3A was illegal and the same was set aside. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into account the fact that the land in dispute had already been utilised for the purpose of laying National Highway and that setting aside the notification of acquisition would only give rise to further practical problems. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also took into account the fact that public interest would not be served by setting aside the notification itself. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the compensation payable to the persons affected in that case be enhanced by directing fresh notification to be issued and compensation to be calculated from the date of the fresh notifiation. In this case, the National Highway has been extended for a length 21. of about 44 KM and the remaining 1.1 KM remains to be widened. Any stoppage of work, at this stage, renders a large part of that Highway unutilisable or would result in a large number of accidents on account of the non-availability of the widened Highway for the 1.1 KM stretch. Keeping in view the above factors, this Court deems it 22. appropriate to dispose of this Writ Appeal, by setting aside the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order, dated 19.02.2022, had been served on the appellants and with a further direction that the appellants be compensated appropriately, by taking the date of fixation of compensation to be the date of this order. As an award has already been passed under Section 3G of the Act 12 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J Vv'.A.No.537 of 2025 it would be appropriate that the appellants are paid the compensation granted to them, under the award passed on 08.09.2022, and fresh proceedings initiated, for refixation of the compensation, payable under the provisions of the Act and on payment of enhanced compensation. Needless to say, the appellants would be entitled to challenge the said award, if so desired, by filing an appeal against the fresh award itself. This exercise is to be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this order. are 23. Sri N. Subbarao, learned Senior Counsel also submits that adequate time be given to the appellants to vacate the buildings which are now to be demolished. In view of the fact that these are residential buildings of the appellants, it would be appropriate to grant a time of three (03) weeks for the appellants to vacate the said buildings and handover the same to the National 24. Highway Authorites. 25. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC^i^ir^FICER To, 1. The National Highways Authority of India, G-5/G-6, Sector 10, Dwaraka Nagar, New Delhi. 2. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 3. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 'C ^ 4. The Competent Authority (LA) and Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Revenue Divisinal Officer, Badvel Revenue Division, YSR Kadepa District. 6. The Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 7. One CC to Sri. G Venkata Reddy Advocate [OPUC],/ 8. One CC to Sri. S S Varma (SC for NHAI) [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri. Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;05/05/2025 ORDER WA.No.537 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS