APHC010337942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17814 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-2 [3506] Chodisetty Nirmalatha ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 11th August 2026 Present: Advocate for Petitioner: Sri K.S.Murthy, assisted by Sri VARUN BYREDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, assisted by Smt.S.PRANATHI ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the preliminary notification dated 08.01.2026 issued under Section 11 of the Act, the subsequent order vide proceedings C.No.01/2026- CRDA(Admn)-Penumaka, dated 01.06.2026, purported to be passed under Section 15(2) of the Act, and consequent declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act vide Form – VII, Rc.No.01/2026-CRDA(Admn.), dated 08.06.2026 and as well as the award enquiry notice dated 06.06.2026 issued under Section 2 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 21 of the Act followed by Award No.1/2026, vide R.C.No.01/2026, dated 14.07.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are set out as under: (a) Initially, in the year 2017-18, petitioner’s land along with several other parcels of land were sought to be acquired by initiating land acquisition proceedings. The same came to be challenged in batch of writ petitions, i.e., W.P. No.22616 of 2018 and batch, in which an order of status quo was passed. Thereafter, the respondents decided to withdraw the initial land acquisition proceedings. In 52nd Authority Meeting of 3rd respondent, a resolution came to be passed whereby it was decided to recommend the 2nd respondent for withdrawal of Acres 343.36 cents of land from the ongoing acquisition and further to accord permission to the Commissioner, APCRDA, for filing requisition for acquisition of land parcels before the District Collector, Guntur, as and when required for completion of ongoing projects for Capital City Development and making encumbrance free plot allotments to farmers. Further, the Government to exempt the project of APCRDA and land acquisition proceedings initiated for development of the project, being an infrastructure project, from 3 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 the provisions of Chapter - II (Social Impact Assessment Determination of Public Purpose) and Chapter - III (Safeguarding Food Security) of the Act. (b) Acting on the said resolution, the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.205, dated 07.10.2025, approving the recommendations. Thereafter, various steps came to be initiated for withdrawal of the earlier land acquisition proceedings. Further, the Government issued proceedings dated 06.11.2025 exempting the land acquisition proceedings in Capital Region from the provisions of Chapter - II and Chapter - III of the Act, by exercising the powers under Section 10A(e) of the Act. The said proceedings were later notified by way of Gazette publication on 02.01.2026. (c) Taking note of aforesaid developments, W.P. No.22616 of 2018 and batch came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2025, by leaving it open to respondents therein to withdraw the impugned notifications and issue fresh notifications in respect of the subject properties under acquisition therein. This Court has also given liberty to the petitioners therein to claim damages/loss suffered by them and on such claims being preferred, the respondents were directed to decide the same for the purpose of determination of compensation. Thus, after withdrawal of the earlier land acquisition proceedings, respondents 3 to 5 initiated 4 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 fresh land acquisition proceedings by issuing draft preliminary notification dated 08.01.2026. Petitioner submitted objections to the same on 05.03.2026. The inquiry under Section 15(2) came to be concluded and orders were passed on 08.04.2026 rejecting the objections. Thereafter, the 6th respondent, by proceedings dated 09.04.2026, approved the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) scheme as “NIL” and declaration as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the Act was issued in Form – VII, vide notification dated 11.04.2026, approving the acquisition of lands for the purpose of formation of E3-(Seed Access Road) for Amaravati Capital City Area. (d) Petitioner challenged the orders issued under Section 15(2) of the Act and the consequential declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act in W.P.No.10223 of 2026. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 07.05.2026, with a direction to the respondents therein to provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner to ventilate the grievance and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to aforesaid order, after hearing the petitioner, 5th respondent passed orders dated 01.06.2026 as envisaged under Section 15(2) of the Act, rejecting the objections raised. Thereafter, declaration under Section 19(1) was issued vide Form – VII, Rc.No.01/2026-CRDA(Admn.), dated 08.06.2026 5 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 approving the acquisition of lands. The declaration was accordingly published in local newspaper on 10.06.2026. (e) The preliminary notification and the consequential declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, as well as issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Act are challenged in the present writ petition. (f) After filing of the writ petition, the interim prayer of petitioner seeking stay of award inquiry since was refused, the respondents concluded the award inquiry and Award No.1/2026 vide Rc.No.01/2026, dated 14.07.2016 was issued. Petitioner challenged the said award as well by seeking amendment to the main prayer. 3. As against the order refusing to grant interim protection, the writ petitioner preferred W.A. No.849 of 2026. While entertaining the writ appeal, the Division Bench, by its order dated 17.07.2026, directed the respondents to maintain status quo as on 16.07.2026 until the next date of hearing and the said interim protection was extended thereafter. Eventually, the appeal came to be disposed of by orders dated 30.07.2026, by continuing the interim protection granted pending the appeal till the application for interim relief is finally decided by this Court. Further, the respondents were also directed to file counter in the writ petitions and thereafter, the writ 6 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 petitioner to file rejoinder, if any, within the time specified therein enabling this Court to decide the matter expeditiously. 4. The 4th respondent filed counter. The petitioner also filed rejoinder thereafter. As pleadings are complete in all respects, with the consent of the learned Senior Counsels appearing on either side, heard this writ petition finally rather than deciding the interlocutory applications. 5. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Varun Byreddy, appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate General, assisted by Smt.S.Pranathi, learned standing counsel for APCRDA. 6. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioner, made following submissions: (a) The very initiation of land acquisition proceedings by issuing preliminary notification is in contravention to Rule 3 of The Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Rules’), inasmuch as neither there is any administrative sanction for initiating such proceedings nor the requisition made in Form - I and Appendix - III provide necessary details of the project, in the manner as envisaged therein. To buttress the same, this Court’s attention is drawn to Appendix – III 7 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 filed along with Form – I, which is part of requisition, vide letter dated 17.10.2025 addressed by 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. It is therefore contended that except for referring to the name of project, i.e., E-3 (Seed Access Road) in Amaravati Capital City Area, the same would not specify any other particulars or details as required to be specified in the Statutory Form – I r/w Appendix - III. Hence, the same is defective. (b) The respondents, though are mandated to conduct preliminary survey of land in order to determine the extent of land to be acquired, without undertaking such survey and without any notice to the land owner, have initiated the present impugned land acquisition proceedings, which is thus in clear contravention to the statutory mandate under Section 12 of the Act. (c) The respondents without following the procedure as prescribed under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and properly undertaking the exercise of R&R by identifying the affected families on account of the acquisition, issued declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act approving the acquisition of subject lands which is in sheer violation of the mandatory requirement of publishing R&R scheme as envisaged under the Act. It is further contended that as per the definition under Section 3(c), “affected family” includes - a family whose land or other immovable property has been acquired, 8 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 hence, as in the present case the land of petitioner is under acquisition, she would fall within the definition of “affected family”. Therefore, the R&R scheme envisaged under Section 16 should necessarily include even the petitioner, but strangely, in the present case the R&R scheme approved does not reflect the name of petitioner. In this context, reference has been made to the earlier R&R scheme published in the year 2017, which included the name of petitioner as affected family. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned declaration under Section 19(1) is thus vitiated on account of not following the mandatory prescription under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. (d) In support of the contention that non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Sections 16, 17 and 18 vitiates the issuance of declaration under Section 19(1) followed by passing award, reliance is placed on following judgments. (i) Common order of this Court in Maddana Anand and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 (ii) Order of High Court for the State of Telangana in K.Ramachandram v. State of Telangana2 1 MANU/AP/1093/2024 2 W.P. No.23939/2019, dated 09.03.2023 9 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 (e) Learned Senior Counsel at this stage referred to para 46 of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.849 of 2026 to contend that no person can be deprived of right to property save by authority of law and that in accordance with law does not mean only by authority of law but also by following the procedure established by law. (f) In view of contentions raised above, it is thus prayed for setting aside the impugned notification and award under challenge. 7. Learned Advocate General opposed the contentions of petitioner as under: (a) Denying the submission that the present proceedings violate the requirement of mandate of Rule 3 of the Rules, it is submitted that the requisition emanated from 3rd respondent to 4th respondent, vide MAU61-LND0LA/28/2024-LND, dated 17.10.2025, clearly specified and provided all the details as mandated under the Rule, such as, Nature of project, Extent of land required, the details of lands with reference to the Mandal, Village/Unit, Survey Number, Classification, the details of earlier land acquisition proceedings concerning the subject lands, the notification of the Government under Section 10(A)(e) of the Act exempting the project from applicability of Chapters - II and III of the Act, along with Form - I, Appendix – I, II & III, thus the same 10 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 have to be considered in entirety for the purpose of meeting the requirements under Rule 3 and Form – I, Appendix – III cannot be construed in isolation for drawing any conclusion that the information provided was insufficient. Even otherwise, it is submitted that petitioner's rights are in no way affected on account of any shortcomings in the process of disclosing the relevant information in Form – I/ Annexure - III. (b) Insofar as conducting preliminary survey in terms of Section 12 of the Act, it is submitted that the same is merely an enabling provision for the authority to conduct survey and definitely neither a mandatory requirement nor it is prerequisite for issuing preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act. The details of subject lands forming part of the acquisition since are already available in great detail with the respondents, it was unnecessary for the authority to embark on preliminary survey once again. Therefore, it is submitted that even if preliminary survey is not conducted, the same would not go to the root of the matter as the same would in no manner affect the right of petitioner, in particular, do not fall within the substantive rights as recognised by the 11 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 Hon’ble Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal Kumar Shan and others3. (c) Insofar as the contention that there has been violation of the procedure as envisaged under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act, while drawing attention of this Court to Paras 14 to 18 of the counter of 3rd respondent, learned Advocate General would submit that R&R scheme has been prepared after conducting survey and undertaking census of the affected families, in the process even petitioner was also issued notice calling upon to attend the public hearing, however, she chose not to attend the same. As the petitioner was found to be not an affected family on account of the proposed acquisition, as neither are being displaced nor losing residence or livelihood, it was decided that she is not entitled to R&R benefits, therefore, a report has been submitted accordingly. In furtherance to the same, the respondents, after reviewing the scheme, ultimately approved R&R scheme as ‘NIL’ by proceedings dated 09.04.2026 and accordingly the same has been published. (d) Learned Advocate General also contended that the issues such as whether at the petitioner would fall within the definition of ‘affected family’ in terms of Section 3(c)(i), whether on account of 3 (2024) 10 SCC 533 12 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 acquisition of the land petitioner lost her livelihood and the ultimate decision of the competent authority that petitioner is in no way affected and entitled for R&R, since are disputed questions of fact, the same can be equally agitated before the authority constituted under Section 64 of the Act. What all is required to be examined at this stage is as to whether the procedure contemplated under Sections 16, 17 and 18 is followed or not and if the answer is in affirmative, the rest of the claims qua petitioner should be relegated to the authority constituted under Section 64 of the Act. (e) Lastly, learned Advocate General, while referring to the order dated 01.06.2026 passed in pursuance to Section 15(2) of the Act, submitted that as against Acres 21.72 cents falling in the limits of Penumaka Village needed for formation of Seed Access Road, Acres 21.07 cents has already been acquired under land pooling scheme, the residual extent of Acres 0.65 cents alone is now required for continuity, alignment and completion of Seed Access Road project, which forms an integral and indispensable component of larger Amravati Capital City Area, therefore, having regard to the larger public interest, minority interest of petitioner should give way and cannot be hindrance for accomplishing the completion of project. 13 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 (f) In this context, it is submitted that as against Acres 280.9956 cents required for the Seed Access Road, except the land concerning to petitioner, the rest and remainder have already been acquired and even the road has been laid substantially. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the following judgments: (i) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in The Automobile Technicians Association vs. Malladi Lakshmi Narayana & others4 (ii) Judgment of Division Bench of combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ch.Kiron and others v. Project Director and Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad.5 8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made above and also gone through the record. 9. The land which is subject matter in this case is under acquisition for formation of E-3 (Seed Access Road) falling within Amaravati Capital City Area. To cut a long story short, the petitioner’s land was initially notified in the year 2017 for acquisition by issuing preliminary notification, which was subject matter of 4 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4857 5 W.A. No.466 of 2006, dated 28.04.2006 14 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 challenge before this Court. On account of status quo granted, the respondents could not proceed with further proceedings. Later, respondents have taken decision to withdraw the initial acquisition proceedings and come up with fresh proceedings. Apparently, said course of action was adopted having realised the lacuna in the earlier proceedings. The respondents have now issued preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, after conducting inquiry under Section 15(1) of the Act, orders were passed and thereafter, issued declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Further, even Award enquiry also concluded and Award has been passed determining the compensation. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced, following issues would fall for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of non-compliance of the mandate under Rule 3 of the Rules? (ii) Whether requirement of conducting survey under Section 12 of the Act is pre-requisite and mandatory for initiating land acquisition proceedings? (iii) Whether the respondents have adhered to the procedure prescribed under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act while issuing R&R scheme and incidentally whether non- 15 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 inclusion of petitioner as affected family under the scheme would vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings? (iv) Whether acquisition of larger parcels of land admeasuring Acres 280.9956 cents for the purpose of formation of E-3 (Seed Access Road), the objections of minority land holders, such as petitioner in the present case, can be ignored if the majority of land holders accept the acquisition proceedings? Issue No.(i): 11. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued proceedings dated 06.11.2025 exempting the applicability of provisions of Chapter - II (Social Impact Assessment and Determination of Public Purpose) and Chapter - III (Safeguarding Food Security) of the Act while exercising the powers under Section 10A(e) of the Act for acquisition of land in Amravati Capital City Area, followed by Gazette notification dated 02.01.2026. Thus, the provisions of Chapter - II and Chapter - III of the Act are inapplicable to the land acquisition proceedings under consideration. 16 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 12. Rule 3 of the Rules specifies that in case if any authority requires land to be acquired, it shall file requisition to the concerned District Collector and the Commissioner, R&R in Form – I together with the documents mentioned therein. The said Rule, thus, reads as under: “3. Requisition for Land Acquisition:-- Any requiring body or its representative duly authorized by it for whom land is to be acquired shall file the Requisition to the concerned District Collector and to the Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in Form – I together with the documents mentioned therein. In case of acquisition for Government, the requisition shall be filed by concerned Secretary of the Department or a person authorised by him.” 13. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings MAU61- LND0LA/28/2024-LND, dated 17.10.2025, addressed to the 4th respondent submitted requisition proposals for acquiring an extent of Acres 22.3976 cents in Penumaka and Undavalli Villages of Tadepalli Mandal and Rayapudi and Mandadam Villages of Thullur Mandal for the purpose of formation of E-3 (Seed Access Road) in A.P. Capital City Area. Along with the said requisition proposals, it is evident that all the copies of references 1 to 5 mentioned therein, requisition in Form – I, Appendix – I, II & III, statement showing the survey number-wise extent and details of court cases over the subject lands and statement showing details 17 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 of the lands covered under earlier notifications which were requested for withdrawal were submitted. The documents so enclosed along with the requisition proposals clearly specify the purpose for which land is required, the extent of land, survey number and Village/Unit in which they fall. Further, the requisition proposal also refers to the decision of State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.205, dated 07.10.2025, according permission to the 3rd respondent for acquiring the subject land for formation of the Capital City. It is also mentioned that the cost of acquisition shall be borne by the 3rd respondent, and in view of the directions issued by Government vide G.O. referred to above, in order to expedite the completion of formation of E-3 (Seed Access Road), the requisition proposals were mooted. 14. In the requisition proposals, there is also a specific reference to the Government order, whereby the larger project of Amaravti Capital City Area has been exempted from the applicability of provisions falling under Chapter – II & III of the Act. The cost of social impact assessment study, which otherwise was required to be undertaken along with requisite cost of acquisition is required to be made available and deposited in terms of the Act as and when required. The same being the requirement as specifically found in Form - I, the requisition proposals made by 3rd respondent 18 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 undertaking to incur entire of above cost would satisfy the requirement of meeting project cost as envisaged under Form - I. 15. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that requisition made above, in particular Form – I and Annexure – III are strictly not in accordance with the requirement of Rule 3 and statutory Form – I/Appendix - III, for the reason that the same do not disclose the necessary information such as the details of administrative sanction with reference to specific proceedings and the estimated cost of project. 16. Rule 3 r/w Form – I and Appendix – III require the requisitioning authority to set out the details of project, the Village, Mandal, survey number, extents and classification of lands required for the proposed acquisition. In Appendix – III, the requisitioning authority also to provide the details of administrative approval and estimated cost of the project. 17. On a conspectus analysis of Rule 3 r/w Form – I and Appendix - III, the requisitioning authority has to provide the necessary information in great detail enabling the competent authority to inter alia process the proposals and come up with a preliminary assessment for proceeding with the acquisition. In the case on hand, the requisitioning authority has provided the details of project, the extent of land minutely by specifying survey numbers 19 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 and classification along with a sketch. Further, though in the Appendix – III, it has been mentioned that the project has been administratively approved for acquisition, the specific details of the same are found in the requisition proposal letter dated 17.10.2025. 18. Insofar as the estimated cost of project, it has been specifically mentioned that the entire cost would be met and sanctioned by the 3rd respondent as and when required. Thus, the requirement of Rule 3, in the considered opinion of this Court, do satisfy to a larger extent. Except for mentioning the exact estimated cost of project, the rest of all requirements under Rule 3 clearly are met. Since it has been mentioned that whatever cost that would be incurred for the proposed acquisition would be met by Commissioner, APCRDA, there is an unequivocal commitment and stand expressed to bear the cost of project from its funds. Therefore, mere non-mentioning of the estimated cost of the project would in no manner have any effect on either the initiation of acquisition proceedings or the rights of petitioner. It is not the case of petitioner that 3rd respondent is incapacitated to pay the compensation determined qua their lands. Accordingly, this issue is answered holding that there is no infirmity in the complaints with Rule 3 requirement. 20 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 Issue No.(ii): 19. Section 12 of the Act, which contemplates preliminary survey of land, reads as under: “12. Preliminary survey of land and power of officers to carry out survey:- For the purposes of enabling the appropriate Government to determine the extent of land to be acquired, it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,— (a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; (b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; (c) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; (d) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; and (e) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that no act under clauses (a) to (e) in respect of land shall be conducted in the absence of the owner of the 21 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 land or in the absence of any person authorised in writing by the owner: Provided further that the acts specified under the first proviso may be undertaken in the absence of the owner, if the owner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to be present during the survey, by giving a notice of at least sixty days prior to such survey: Provided also that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling- house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.” 20. A reading of above provision goes to show that in order to determine the exact extent of land required for acquisition, the authority is entitled to conduct survey in that regard and mark the boundaries etc. However, while undertaking such exercise, the consent of owner of the land is held to be necessary with prior notice to him. In the present case, it is the case of petitioner that the respondents, without conducting any preliminary survey, have proceeded to issue preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is not the case of petitioner that the respondents conducted survey without prior notice to them and that the same has prejudiced or affected their rights. 22 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 21. In the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has outlined seven sub-rights that can be identified, though not exhaustive, which concern right to property. Para 30 of the said judgment reads as under: “30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: (i) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — the right to notice, (ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition — the right to be heard, (iii) The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision, (iv) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only for public purpose, (v) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate — the right of restitution or fair compensation, (vi) The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and (vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting — the right of conclusion.” 23 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 22. The above-said seven rights are foundational components of law, which are in tune with Article 300-A and violation of any of the same would render such action susceptible to challenge. Definitely, the violation alleged on account of non-adherence to Section 12 of the Act would strike the root of the matter and substantially affect the right of the petitioner, besides not even come to closer to any of the seven rights identified and prescribed above. 23. As rightly contended by learned Advocate General, Section 12 of the Act merely enables the appropriate authority to conduct survey over the lands needed for acquisition in order to determine the exact extent with specific boundaries. If at all a survey is conducted in the absence of owner without his consent or without any prior notice, the same in a way would contravene the mandate under Section 12 of the Act. But, however, it is not the case so. In fact, the land of petitioner was subject matter of acquisition in previous land acquisition proceedings. The requisition proposals were made only after identifying the exact extent and location of lands for acquisition. Therefore, in no manner, the rights of petitioner is either affected or prejudiced on account of non-conducting the survey once again. Even for a moment, it is to be considered that excess extent of land otherwise required has 24 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 been notified under preliminary notification, petitioner has multiple avenues to raise objections at the stage of inquiry under Section 15 of the Act and also during the award enquiry. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that conducting survey in terms of Section 12 is merely an enabling exercise in furtherance of the competent authority identifying and locating the exact extent of land required for acquisition and it is for it to decide as to whether at all such survey is required to be done and if it is felt so required, the procedure contemplated under Section 12 necessarily has to be followed in the manner envisaged therein. Issue No.(iii): 24. Section 16 of the Act specifies that once publication of preliminary notification under Section 11(1) is carried out, the administrator for R&R shall conduct survey and undertake a census of the affected families. The exercise so envisaged should include collecting the details of lands and immovable properties being acquired of each affected family, livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired, list of public utilities and government buildings likely to be affected, details of amenities and infrastructure facilities likely to be affected and details of any common property resources being acquired. Based on such survey 25 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 and census, a draft R&R scheme is required to be prepared, which should include particulars of R&R entitlements of each land owner and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired. While preparing the draft R&R scheme, wide publicity to be given in the affected areas and after conducting public hearing, a draft scheme with a specific report regarding claims and objections raised in the public hearing to be submitted to the Collector. 25. Section 17 of the Act envisages that the Collector, upon receiving the report and draft R&R scheme, shall review the same and submit the same to Commissioner (R&R) for approval with suggestions, if any. Section 18 empowers the Commissioner to approve the R&R scheme and publish the same in the manner as prescribed. Until and unless summary of R&R is published, declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be issued. 26. It is the case of petitioner that though her land is affected for the formation of Seed Access Road, without adhering to the procedure contemplated under Sections 16, 17 and 18, the respondents have straightaway issued declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, thus, vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings. Petitioner also contended that the R&R scheme as approved to be ‘NIL ’ does not factor the name of petitioner as affected family, 26 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 similar exercise undertaken during previous acquisition proceedings indicated otherwise, therefore, the R&R scheme published is non est. 27. In order to consider aforesaid submissions, first it is to be examined whether at all the R&R scheme was prepared as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act. In the counter filed by 3rd respondent, it has been pleaded that Project Administrator, by proceedings dated 05.02.2026, constituted a team consisting of various officers to conduct survey and undertake census of affected families as mandated under Section 16 of the Act r/w Rule 22 of the Rules in order to prepare a comprehensive and detailed draft R&R scheme. Notice was issued to petitioner requesting to attend the public hearing. However, petitioner did not participate in the meeting. As the petitioner was an advocate, she was found not to be entitled for R&R benefits, the preliminary report came to be prepared holding that she would not be affected person. Accordingly, the Project Administrator issued proceedings dated 09.04.2026 showing R&R scheme as ‘NIL’ and the same was later been published as required under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act has been issued approving for acquisition of the property. The stand taken by 3rd respondent in the counter has not been denied by petitioner in 27 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 the rejoinder nor learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner denied the same during the arguments. 28. A glance of proceedings dated 09.04.2026, by which R&R scheme has been approved, clearly indicates that the respondents had conducted inquiry as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act for preparing the draft R&R scheme, thereafter, considering the details ascertained with regard to various aspects as envisaged under the said section, report was drawn and the same has been later approved by the competent authority. 29. Be that as it may, petitioner contends that the so-called R&R scheme is non est, inasmuch as the same did not factor the petitioner as affected family, whereas the very same authority in the previous round of acquisition proceedings clearly described her to be one such affected family. As opposed to that, stand of respondents is that petitioner would not qualify to be affected family for the purpose of claiming benefits under R&R scheme and the said decision so arrived since was based on appreciation of material or information before the committee, the said issue being a factual dispute cannot be gone into in the present proceedings, rather be canvassed in reference under Section 64 of the Act before appropriate authority. Perusal of Section 64 of the Act indicates that even issues concerning either inclusion or exclusion 28 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 under R&R scheme are amenable for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the procedure adopted by respondents in preparation of draft R&R scheme and later approving the same does not fall foul of the requirement under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. However, having said that, the claim of petitioner that she has been excluded from the ambit of affected party and thereby denied R&R benefits, by approving ‘NIL’ scheme, can as well be agitated before the authority under Section 64 of the Act. 30. There is no denial or dispute with regard to the proposition enunciated in Maddana Anand’s case1 and K.Ramachandram’s case2 as emphasized by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that non-adherence to the procedure, by drawing support of the judgments, contemplated under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act vitiates the Land Acquisition Proceedings and even the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act as well as the Award. However, the facts on hand do not fit into the said proposition, inasmuch as this Court has come to conclusion that the respondents indeed followed the procedure. However, the contentious issue whether the writ petitioner being excluded from R&R benefits is open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. 29 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 Issue No.(iv): 31. The land under acquisition is for E-3 (Seed Access Road). The stretch of E-3 road runs 19.2 Kms. The total extent of land needed for forming the road has been identified as Acres 280.9956 cents. As per the orders issued under Section 15(2) of the Act, it discloses that Acres 276.1966 cents have already been acquired through land pooling scheme and major portions of road already laid and put to use. The subject matter of acquisition, as per preliminary notification, was for an extent of Acres 0.65 cents. Thus, only minuscule extent of land remains compared to the larger extent of land needed for the project in question. 32. In this background, the issue in consideration requires to be examined. Division Bench of this Court in The Automobile Technicians Association case4, dealing with similar issue, while repelling the objections of minority land holders, held as under: “53. Another issue raised, in this case, was the principle that, in cases of acquisition of large parcels of land, the objections of a minority of the landholders, even if well-founded, can be ignored if the majority of the landholders accept the acquisition proceedings. The ratio behind this principle, as can be abstracted from the following judgments, is that where a large extent of land is being acquired for execution of a comprehensive project and 30 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 the majority of the landholders accept the scheme, it would not be permissible to stall the entire scheme for the sake of a few landholders who are holding very little land. This is because, the entire land is needed to implement the object of the acquisition and deletion of a small part of the land would render the scheme unimplementable. Such a course of action should not be taken, even if the objections of the minority of the landholders are tenable and well founded.” 33. It is also to be noted that the purpose for which land is acquired is for development of infrastructure in the Amravati Capital City Region, which definitely has immense public importance and any impediment in implementation of the said project would have larger repercussions and thus must be viewed with greater circumspection. E-3 (Seed Access Road) is main trunk road, which connects entire Amaravti Capital Development Region, therefore has greater significance. In Ch.Kiron’s case5, the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court, while dealing with land acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of acquiring lands for laying outer ring road, taking note of the significance of the project, has held as under: “While disposing of the appeal, we deem it necessary to emphasize the imperative need of vigilance on the part of the public authorities, who have been entrusted with 31 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 the task of implementing what is considered as one of the most important projects for the city of Hyderabad. This city has been inviting many thousand crores of investment from all over the country and abroad. Needless to say that availability of sound infrastructure is sine qua non for attracting investment. We can take notice of the chaotic conditions in relation to traffic prevailing in another advanced city of country, i.e. Bangalore, which prompted the Central cabinet to take a decision to immediately approve the project for metro rail and Bangalore-Mysore highway. These projects are of immense public importance and any impediment by the executive apparatus of the State in implementation of these projects must be viewed with grave adversity. Even judicial intervention in such matters has to be made with great caution and circumspection. The Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that delay in implementation of public-oriented projects adds to the huge cost in its execution. Even a single day's delay enhances the cost by few crores of rupees, which has naturally to be born by the public at large.” 34. Keeping in view the aforesaid views expressed, any amount of delay in executing the present project would not only cause any amount of inconvenience to the public at large, but also would hamper the ongoing developmental activities. When substantial part of the land for the project has already been acquired, utilized 32 CGR, J W.P. No.17814 of 2026 and brought into use, the individual land owner’s grievance should definitely be subservient to larger object and as well as concurrence of majority land holders to the acquisition proceedings. 35. For all aforesaid reasons. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS Whether the order is: Speaking Non-speaking Reportable Non-reportable