APHC010353352018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.1 Between: 1. Chunchu Venkata sudhakar, S/o late Venkatayya, 38 years, Service, r/o Bestavaripeta village and Mandal, Prakasam District and others. AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Pr and National Highways, New Delhi Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following The present writ petition is filed respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not considering the objections made by the petitioners against the preliminary Notification dated 07.3.2018 and the subsequent Notification dated 09.3.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of the subject matter lands as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through online made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ affidavit. He submits that Village and eking out their livelihood by business in the said Village. He IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.16638 OF 2018 Chunchu Venkata sudhakar, S/o late Venkatayya, 38 years, Service, r/o Bestavaripeta village and Mandal, Prakasam District , Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Transport National Highways, New Delhi, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Naram Nageswara Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not considering the objections made by the petitioners against the preliminary Notification dated 07.3.2018 and the subsequent Notification dated 09.3.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 ect of the subject matter lands as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through online made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ affidavit. He submits that the petitioners are residents of Bestavaripeta Village and eking out their livelihood by business in the said Village. He IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Chunchu Venkata sudhakar, S/o late Venkatayya, 38 years, Service, r/o Bestavaripeta village and Mandal, Prakasam District, ...Petitioners Ministry of Transport ...Respondents Naram Nageswara Rao seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not considering the objections made by the petitioners against the preliminary Notification dated 07.3.2018 and the subsequent Notification dated 09.3.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 ect of the subject matter lands as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through online made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ the petitioners are residents of Bestavaripeta Village and eking out their livelihood by business in the said Village. He 2 submits that in view of the extension of NH-544D road, which is passing through the middle of the said Village, the businesses of the petitioners were seriously affected and under those circumstances, the petitioners submitted their objections on 24.2.2018. He submits that without considering the said objections, the respondent No.3 issued Proceedings dated 07.3.2018 and 09.3.2018. He submits that thereafter the respondent Authorities issued another Notification dated 18.4.2018 under Section 3(G)(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and under the said circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition. He submits that as the objections of the petitioners are not properly considered, the impugned Proceedings are liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, to which no reply affidavit is filed. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned Proceedings, he submits that the objections of the petitioners were duly examined and as the acquisition of the land for providing bypass road to NH-544D, which is in the public interest, is inevitable, the proceedings in terms of the National Highways Act were initiated. He also submits that as stated in the impugned Proceedings, the petitioners would be entitled for payment of compensation and if at all they have any grievance, they have to work out their remedies as provided under the National Highways Act. He submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As seen from the impugned Proceedings, the respondent No.3 while referring to the objections raised by the petitioners and taking into account the remarks submitted by the respondent No.6, rejected the objections of the petitioners, more particularly in view of the fact that 3 acquisition of the land is in the public interest i.e., laying of bypass road. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the objections raised by the petitioners are not considered, cannot be accepted. Further, it is settled law that the interest of public at large will prevail over the private interest. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court see no ground to interfere with the impugned Proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to determination of compensation, they can work out their remedies in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act. 5. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 29, 2025. vasu