APHC010270492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No. Between: Vemu Institute of Technology, P.Kothakota, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District rep., by its Chairman, K.Chandrasekhar Naidu, S/o.Late P.Vengama Naidu, Aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.15 Colony, Pakala, Chittoor District AND 1. The Government of India rep., by its Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to declare the Notification in S.O.3929(E), dated 02 Section 3A of the National High Ways Act, 1956, Roc.G2/3556/2016, consequential declaration in Government of India Gazette in S.O.No.1059(E) Extraordinary No.941, dated 09 3D(2) and the Public Notice in Roc.No.NHAI/G1/1088/2012(1), dated 03-2018 under Section 3(G)(3) & (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 issued by the respondent No.3 for acquisition the land Ac.355.3 Sq.Mts in Sy.No1020/2 and 800.8 Sq. Mts in Sy.No.1023/23 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.12092 OF 2018 Vemu Institute of Technology, P.Kothakota, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District rep., by its Chairman, K.Chandrasekhar Naidu, S/o.Late P.Vengama Naidu, Aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.15 Colony, Pakala, Chittoor District. The Government of India rep., by its Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.S.Parineeta Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition Mr.K.Naveen Kumar Reddy M.V. Kini Co., Advocates Solicitors The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to declare the Notification in S.O.3929(E), dated 02-01-2018 under Section 3A of the National High Ways Act, 1956, Proceedings in Roc.G2/3556/2016, dated 09-02-2018 under Section consequential declaration in Government of India Gazette in o.1059(E) Extraordinary No.941, dated 09-03-2018 under Section 3D(2) and the Public Notice in Roc.No.NHAI/G1/1088/2012(1), dated 2018 under Section 3(G)(3) & (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 issued by the respondent No.3 for acquisition the land in an extant of Ac.355.3 Sq.Mts in Sy.No1020/2 and 800.8 Sq. Mts in Sy.No.1023/23 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Vemu Institute of Technology, P.Kothakota, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District rep., by its Chairman, K.Chandrasekhar Naidu, S/o.Late P.Vengama Naidu, Aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.15–89/1, New ...Petitioner The Government of India rep., by its Ministry of Road Transport ...Respondents Land Acquisition Kumar Reddy M.V. Kini Co., Advocates Solicitors The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: 2018 under Proceedings in under Section 3(C)(2), consequential declaration in Government of India Gazette in 2018 under Section 3D(2) and the Public Notice in Roc.No.NHAI/G1/1088/2012(1), dated - 2018 under Section 3(G)(3) & (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in an extant of Ac.355.3 Sq.Mts in Sy.No1020/2 and 800.8 Sq. Mts in Sy.No.1023/23 of 2 P.Kothakota Village fields, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the Petitioner, for the purpose of expansion of the Kukkalapalli- Mallavaram Section, NH -140 (6 Lanes), without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner as is contemplated under Section 3(C)(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as arbitrary, illegal, quite contrary to the mandatory procedure envisaged under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being and voilative of the fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same in respect of the land in an extant of Ac.355.3 Sq.Mts in Sy.No1020/2 and 800.8 Sq.Mts in Sy.No.1023/23 of P.Kothakota Village fields, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Mr.A.Manjunatha Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent No.3. 3. As seen from the relief sought for in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the petitioner’s grievance is with regard to acquisition of land of an extent of 355.3 Sq.Mts in Sy.No1020/2 and 800.8 Sq.Mts in Sy.No.1023/23 of P.Kothakota Village fields, Puthalapattu Mandal for the expansion of Kukkalapatti–Mallavaram Section, NH–140 (6 lanes). The petitioner is seeking to declare the action initiated by the respondents for acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the National Highways Act as illegal. The main contention advanced is that the respondent No.3, vide Proceedings dated 09.2.2018 rejected the objections raised by the petitioner without considering the same in a proper perspective by giving an opportunity of personal hearing, that the same is contrary to the procedure envisaged under Section 3(C)(2) of the said Act. The learned counsel submits that 3 the said Proceedings were communicated only one day prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 3(G)(3) & (4) of the Act. He submits that pursuant to the publication of Notification under Section 3(A)(1) of the Act, the petitioner submitted objections dated 19.1.2018 and 07.3.2018, inter alia stating that in view of the sharp curve in between P–Kothakota and the petitioner-College main Gate, accidents would occur and that the sharp curve is being introduced only to help a landlord on the opposite side of the petitioner-College and therefore, a technical person may be deputed to re-conduct survey. He also submits that as contemplated under Section 3(C) of the Act, the competent authority i.e., the respondent No.3 has to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing any order by allowing / disallowing the objections. He submits that no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and as such, the rejection orders dated 09.02.2018 are liable to be set aside. He submits that in fact, the said Proceedings were issued with a back-date, just before publication of Notification under Section 3(G) of the Act. He submits that as the acquisition of the subject land would cause serious prejudice, great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. He also submits that on 10.4.2018 an order of status quo with regard to possession of the subject matter property and that the other proceedings may go on was passed. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the various averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 to which no reply affidavit is filed. He submits that various contentions raised in the writ petition, more particularly, with reference to affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner are not tenable. He submits that the respondent No.3 and the authorities concerned had strictly adhered to the provisions of the National Highways Act, and the contentions contra, are misconceived. 4 Referring to the specific assertions in various paragraphs in the counter affidavit at page Nos.5 to 8, he submits that various dates were fixed for hearings of objections and intimation in this regard was communicated to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said notices, he submits that, the petitioner attended the hearing before the respondent No.3 on 07.2.2018 and therefore, the contention that the proceedings/orders dated 09.2.2018 were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is incorrect, baseless and not tenable. 5. In so far as the issue of curves etc., are concerned, he submits that it is purely a technical aspect, which is well within the realm of the Project Implementation Authority and that the petitioner’s objections / request for change of alignment is not feasible for technical reasons. He submits that as the objections raised were considered and rejected after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the grievance ventilated is unsustainable. He further submits that the contentions with regard to service / communication of rejection proceedings dated 09.02.2018 are without valid basis and untenable. He also submits that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the respondent No.3 passed an Award dated 22.5.2018 determining the compensation payable to the concerned land owners. He submits that notices were also sent to the petitioner to receive the compensation, but the same were rejected. Be that as it may. He submits that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the construction works were stalled and the same is causing much inconvenience to the public at large. Making the said submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As noted earlier, the grievance of the petitioner mainly is that before passing the order under challenge, the respondent 5 No.3 had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the objections submitted were not properly considered. However, as seen from the documents filed along with the counter affidavit, the respondent No.3 issued Notices dated 30.1.2018 etc., calling upon the petitioner to file objections / attend the hearing and thereafter vide Proceedings dated 09.02.2018 rejected the objections. The specific assertions made in the counter affidavit, in this regard, have not been contradicted by filing a reply affidavit. Thus, the same amounts to admission. 7. Further, as seen from the Proceedings dated 09.02.2018, some of the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected for technical reasons. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, alignments, construction of high-rise roads, under-passes etc., involve technical aspects and the same are within the realm of the Project Implementation Authority. The Courts would be loathe to interfere in such decisions involving technical expertise as they do not possess the same. Be that as it may. As it is not disputed that an Award in respect of the subject matter land determining the compensation had already been passed, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to work out the remedies in accordance with law, more particularly, as the impugned proceedings does not suffer from any illegality. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim orders shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 06.01.2026. vasu