1 APHC010661822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 34359/2025 Between: 1. SMT. C VIJAYA, W/O C. BALAKRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O KRISHNAJAMMAPURAM VILLAGE GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. C. BAIAKRISHNAMA NAIDU, S/O LATE CHENGALARAYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 68YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O KRISHNAJAMMAPURAM VILLAGE GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR-CUM-COMPETENT AUTHORITY L A, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BANGALORE- CHENNAI EXPRESS HIGHWAY CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT - KANCHIPURAM PALLAVAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MADURAVOYAL, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU STATE 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. C JHANSI RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue an order or proceeding or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Impugned Proceedings in D.Dis.No.215/LA/NHAI/21/2017/Arbitration/2022 and D.Dis.No.213/LA/NHAI/21/2017/Arbitration/2022, both are dt.05-04-2023 to the extent of not considering and adjudicating the request of the petitioners for enhancement of the compensation for the value of the trees of the petitioners while acquiring the land of the petitioners situated in Krishnajammapuram village, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District for purpose of laying Bangalore-Chennai National Express Highway as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Sec.3G(5) of the NHAI and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Proceedings in D.Dis.No.215/LA/NHAI/21/2017/Arbitration/2022 and D.Dis.No.213/LA/NHAI/21/2017/Arbitration/2022, both are dt.05-04-2023 issued by the 1st respondent and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider the Appeal filed by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation for the value of the trees of the petitioners situated in Krishnajammapuram village, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District for laying the Bangalore- Chennai National Express Highway in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.1 dated 05.04.2023 under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Authority of India. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that insofar as the enhancement of compensation for land is concerned, the 2nd respondent has considered and granted enhancement. However, in respect of the existing trees, the said 4 respondent has neither considered the same nor given any finding. Hence the present writ petition. 5. On perusal of the impugned awards, as the same are passed under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, and same are to be treated as awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and under Section 34 statutory remedy is available. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Insofar as the applicability of the Limitation Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the said aspect in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Private Limited1. 6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 along with an application for condonation of delay. On such filing, the competent authority may consider the same in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Maharashtra’s case (mentioned supra) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 29.12.2025 Vns 1 MANU/SC/0195/2021 5