APHC010145172014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.929 of 2014 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. M/S NAVA BHARAT VENTURES LIMITED, 6-3-1109/1, NAVA BHARAT CHAMBERS, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. C. MANI KUMAR S/O LATE SRI C. SESHAGIRI RAO. 2. V. ARUNODAYA BABU, S/O V. SRINIVAS RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE/SHARE HOLDER, R/O FLAT NO.308, SWASTIK RESIDENCY APARTMENTS, BHAG AMEER, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.929 of 2014 3. ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, O/o THE CHIEF ENGINEER (R&B), A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN 2. N. SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.929 of 2014 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.929 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the order dated 23.01.2014 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.29727 of 2013, whereby the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 21.08.2012, to acquire private lands for the purpose of widening and strengthening the public road, was declared as illegal and was set aside, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the State. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellant-State and Mr. N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners. 3. The State Government has issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 8the Act9) on 21.08.2012 to acquire the private lands of respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners for the public purpose of widening and strengthening the road. A draft declaration, as required under Section 6 of the Act, was also issued. The said Notification was challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/writ petitioners on the ground that the purpose mentioned in the Notification for acquiring the lands is for widening and strengthening the existing road, but the lands in question were, in fact, sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of a new road and when the actual purpose for acquiring the land is varying from the purpose mentioned in the Notification, the Notification is not valid and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.929 of 2014 4. The learned single Judge, after considering the earlier precedents rendered on the point and, particularly, after considering the decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Gadadhar Ghose v. State of West Bengal1, held that the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act to acquire the lands in question for the purpose of widening and strengthening the road are bad in law, as it is found that the lands are actually sought to be acquired for formation of a new road and not for the purpose mentioned in the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge has declared the said Notification and the consequential acquisition proceedings as illegal and has set aside the same. While allowing the writ petition accordingly, the learned single Judge made it clear that the said order does not preclude the competent authority to resort to fresh notification indicating the purpose of acquisition and to take up appropriate further action as warranted by law. 5. When this writ appeal came up for admission on 10.06.2014, this Court held that it would be open to the Government to take steps afresh, as suggested by the learned single Judge. 6. Today, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellant-State, having placed on record the written instructions received by him, would submit that a fresh Notification was already issued on 06.08.2016 and pursuant thereto, a portion of the land was already acquired and compensation was also paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners and in view of the same, there is no necessity to further pursue this writ appeal by the State. He 1 AIR 1963 Calcutta 565 (V 50 C 108)(1) 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.929 of 2014 further submits that if any land is required to be further acquired, the State would follow the procedure contemplated under the new Act and acquire the land for the intended purpose. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners also would concede that a fresh Notification was issued on 06.08.2016 and a portion of the land of the writ petitioners was already acquired and compensation was paid to them in pursuance of the said Notification. 8. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this writ appeal for adjudication. 9. Therefore, recording the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners, this writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 04.02.2026 IBL 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.A.No.929 of 2014 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.929 of 2014 Dt: 04.02.2026 IBL