APHC010081252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL NO: 226/2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appellants herein begs to present this memorandum of Writ Appeal against the common order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.11086 of 2024 dated 30.12.2025 Between: 1. BANDLAMURI CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BANDLAMURISEETHAMMA, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. CHEREDDY SIVARANI, W/O. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. ISSAPPAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROADS, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUMJOINT COLLECTOR1, LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 167-A, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (NORTH), D. NO. 38-2-3/2 GORLEDALATANNAVEEDHI, NEAR AMERICAN HOSPITAL, PUNNAMITHOTA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.226 of 2026 DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B, NH DIVISION, MG ROAD, OPP RTO OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET REVENUE DIVISION, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to permit the petitioner to file the additional material papers namely The certificate dt.29.03.2025, The gazette notification dt.25.01.2020, G.O. Ms No. 75 dt25.01.2020, the letter dt. 11.04.2025 and the endorsement dt.20.08.2025, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant to 3-A notification dt. 23.02.2024 including dispossessing us from the schedule property covered by Sy.Nos. 47- A, 55/A, 55/B, 47/B1, 55/A1, 61/C1, of Issappapalem Village, Narasaraopet Town and Mandal, Palnadu District., pending Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. M ANAND KUMAR 3. 4. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.226 of 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.12.2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos.11083, 11086, 11090, 11092 and 11095 of 2024 is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 2. Heard Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 4 to 7 and Mr.Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India, appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The appellants are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac.4.98 cents covered in Survey Nos.47/B1, 55/A1, 55/B1, situated in Narasaraopet Town. The said lands are sought to be acquired by the National Highways Authority for the construction of a National Highway Road. After making the Gazette notification, a paper publication was issued. The appellants have also submitted their objections before the concerned authority. Alleging that the said objections are not considered, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. 4. The main objection of the appellants is that as per Section 3A(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), where a notification was issued and it was published in newspaper in its vernacular language, a brief description of the land sought to be acquired is to be given in the notification and no such description of the land in compliance with the said provision is given in the paper publication and consequently it vitiates the proceedings initiated by the National Highways Authority to acquire the said lands. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.226 of 2026 5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, found that the description of the land was given in the notification issued by way of giving a QR code and the appellants themselves have admitted in the pleadings of the Writ Petition that they have opened the QR code and verified the extent of their land and the survey numbers of the land and as such, it cannot be said that the procedure contemplated under Section 3A(2) of the Act has been violated. Therefore, it is stated the Writ Petition was dismissed. 6. The fact that the description of the land sought to be acquired was given in the notification by way of furnishing QR code is not disputed. In fact, a perusal of the pleadings in the Writ Petition clearly shows that the appellants have got knowledge that the description of the land was given in the QR code in the notification and that they have opened the QR code and found the extent of the land and the survey numbers of the land sought to be acquired. Therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure contemplated under Section 3A(2) of the Act has been contravened. All that it is stated in Section 3A(2) is that the description of the land is to be given in the notification. It does not say anything regarding the form in which the description of the land is to be shown in the notification. Therefore, it is obvious that it is left open to the authorities concerned to give the description of the land in any form. Therefore, when they have given the description of the land by way of QR code, it is sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 3A(2) of the Act. 7. Further, a careful perusal of Section 3A of the Act shows that clause (1) of Section 3A envisages that when the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required, it may, by notification of a Gazette, declare the intention to acquire such land. Clause (2) of Section 3A says that every such notification issued under clause (1) of Section 3A shall give a brief description of the land. It does not say that in the notification published in the local newspaper, a brief description of the land is to be given. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.226 of 2026 Clause (3) of Section 3A deals with publication of notification in the newspapers and it only mandates that it shall cause the substance of the notification published in the newspaper. So when a notification is published in the newspapers, there is no requirement to give the brief description of the lands sought to be acquired. The requirement is only to give the substance in the notification. Therefore, if clause (1) and clause (2) are read together, it makes the position clear that clause (3) is only relating to publication of notification in the newspaper. Even in that way, no case is made out by the appellants warranting interference with the notification. The learned Single Judge has undertaken an extensive exercise in dealing with the provisions properly with reference to the decided case law and arrived at right conclusion. 8. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants reported in J & K Housing Board and Another vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul and Others1, wherein it was held at paragraph 32 that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefor in the Act, has no application to the present facts of the case. 9. The statutory provision referred to above does not prescribe the manner in which the description of the land is to be given. Therefore, it is left open to the authorities concerned to give the description of the land in any acceptable mode or manner. It is nowhere held that giving description of the land by way of QR code is prohibited. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no avail to advance his case. 10. Ergo, the appeal is devoid of merit and it warrants no interference. 1 (2011) 10 SCC 714 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.226 of 2026 11. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 12-03-2026 BMS