Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

T. Subramanyam Naidu, vs Government Of India, on 5 December, 2023

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

                                   1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
                 WRIT PETITION No.24172 of 2022
Between:-

T. Subramanyam Naidu and two others
                                                        ....Petitioners.
                                  And

Government of India rep. by Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
and six others.
                                                   ....    Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners   :   Mr.Kishore Kumar Dhodla

Counsel for the Respondents :     Mr. Tandava Yogesh, learned
                                  counsel representing the learned
                                  Standing Counsel for NHAI.
                                  G.P. for Land Acquisition.
                                  G.P. for Revenue
                                  G.P. for Irrigation & CAD

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

4th respondent in not considering the objections/ representations

dated 20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 of the petitioners in releasing the

pending compensation for the infrastructure and underground drip

irrigation system to them is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles

14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and contrary to Sections

26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (for short ―the Act‖) and for consequential direction to

the 4th respondent to pay Rs.53,56,578/- with 100% solatium for

the affected infrastructure and underground drip irrigation system

in the process of laying Bangalore-Chennai Express way situated at

Sy.Nos.153/10, 153/12, 153/13, 153/15, 153/16, 153/17, 1/1B,

1/2B, 2/1A1 and 2/1B of 190-Ramapuram village and 189-

Kottapalli, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

2) The relevant facts of the case, which are germane for

consideration, may briefly be narrated as follows:

3) The National High Way Authority of India (for short ―the

NHAI‖) has taken up the work of construction of four lane

Bangalore-Chennai Expressway in three phases to facilitate high

speed travel between Bangalore and Chennai. The alignment of

the project passes through the States of Karnataka, Andhra

Pradesh and Tamilnadu. Phase III of the project consists of 105-

705 km., out of which 12 km., falls in Chittoor District and comes

under the jurisdiction of Project Implementation Unit,

Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu. For the purpose of the said project

NHAI sent requisitions for acquisition of lands measuring

approximately an extent of 2,63,390 sq.mtrs., in 189-Kothapalle

village and 5,66,892 sq.mtrs., in 190-Ramapuram village of

Gudipala Mandal of Chittoor District. The lands situated in

Sy.Nos.153/10, 153/12, 153/13, 153/15, 153/16, 153/17,

153/19A in 190-Ramapuram village and the lands situated in

Sy.Nos.1/1A, 1/1B, 1/2A, 1/2B, 2/1A and 2/1B in 183-Kothapalle

village are part of the land acquisition pertaining to the

Bangalore-Chennai Expressway in the stretch of land from

Km.74/870 to 82/150 and 83/350 to Km.164/500 in Chittoor

District.

4) The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,

Government of India, New Delhi, issued Notification under

Section 3-A National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ―the NH

Act‖), vide S.O.No.1048(E) Dt.17.04.2015 declaring its intention

to acquire the land situated in 189-Kothapalle and 190-

Ramapuram villages, including the above referred lands.

Initially the Notification was published in the local newspapers

i.e., Andhra Jyothi (Telugu), dt.16.07.2015 and The Hindu

(English), dated 16.07.2015, and an additional 3A Notification

vide S.O.No.1251 (E) dated 21.04.2017 was published on

06.06.2017 in Prajasakthi (Telugu) and Hans India (English)

Newspapers and the land owners / interested persons were

granted 21 days time from the date of publication of the said

Notifications to file their objections in writing to the 4th

respondent. After passing orders on the objections received

under Section 3C of the N.H.Act, a Notification vide S.O.1399(E)

dated 12.04.2016, under Section 3D of the NH Act was issued

covering the above mentioned lands situated in both the villages.

Additional 3D Notification was published vide S.O.No.317(E),

dated 19.01.2018 for the additional lands. Thereafter, Section

3G Notification under the NH Act was published in the

newspapers i.e., Andhra Prabha (Telugu) and Hans India

(English) dated 18.05.2016 and after completion of the enquiry,

the 4th respondent through proceedings dated 15.03.2018

determined the compensation payable in respect of the lands

mentioned above. While the authorities were proceeding in the

matter to execute the works in respect of Expressway project,

the present writ petition is filed.

5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

heard Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel representing the

counsel for the NHAI and the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the 5th respondent.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners purchased different extents of lands in the above

referred Survey numbers through registered sale deeds and

planted trees like mango, coconut, tamarind, teak, neem, lemon

etc. He submits that the petitioners fenced the entire property

with barbed wire and for development of the plantations, laid

pipeline / drip irrigation system by availing huge loans from

Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor. He submits that the

respondent authorities without taking the relevant aspects into

consideration submitted a report and on the basis of the same,

the 4th respondent passed orders dated 07.05.2018 etc.,

awarding compensation without taking the structural values,

bore well, open well and ground drip irrigation values. He

submits that the compensation amount awarded was received

under protest and the petitioners made representations dated

20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 to the 4th respondent, who in turn

invited the officials of the Rural Water Supply to evaluate the

existing pipelines and barbed wire fencing in the subject matter

lands. He submits that as no further action is initiated by the 4th

respondent, the petitioners are constrained to file the present

Writ Petition.

7) Referring to the 9th para of the affidavit, learned counsel

submits that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of

Rs.30,56,578/- towards fencing, drip irrigation water pipeline

and borewell charges. Further, that the petitioners are also

entitled to Rs.23 lakhs towards compensation for infrastructure

and underground drip irrigation system i.e., in all

Rs.53,56,578/-. He submits that unless the respondents pay the

said amount of compensation to the petitioners, they cannot

proceed with the works in respect of the project in question. He

also submits that by virtue of acquisition of the petitioners' lands,

the same have virtually been reduced to three pieces and the

petitioners are deprived of their valuable property. Making the

said submissions, learned counsel seeks the reliefs as prayed for.

8) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the NHAI made submissions to the effect that in view of the

representations dated 20.04.2022 and 03.07.2022 made by the

petitioners, the 4th respondent requested the concerned

departments to revisit the subject matter lands for correct

enumeration of trees and other assets and requested them to

evaluate the same. He submits that after receipt of the reports,

the 4th respondent passed supplementary awards, vide

proceedings dated 21.11.2022, and supplementary structural

awards dated 04.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 covering the

properties in Kothapplle village and Ramapuram village

respectively. In view of the same, learned counsel submits that

the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. Be that as it

may, drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant

averments in the counter affidavit and also to the material filed

along with the same, he submits that the 4th respondent by

taking into consideration of the relevant factors had arrived at

additional compensation of Rs.27,09,094/-.

9) In elaboration, he further submits that as is evident from

the communications dated 03.02.2023 of the District

Horticulture Officer addressed to the 4th respondent, the

components of Drip material are removable and reusable.

Despite the said position, the authorities had assessed the

amount towards installation of drip system, and the contentions

contra in this regard, are not tenable. Learned counsel also

submits that in fact the writ petitioners had already received

Rs.1,05,73,745/- towards compensation for both the land and

assets i.e., trees etc., and in the event the petitioners are not

satisfied with the supplementary awards in respect of the drip

irrigation, barbed wire fencing etc., they can as well invoke the

provisions of NH Act and approach the statutory arbitrator i.e.,

the District Collector-5th respondent herein. He also contends

that in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, the

project works of great national importance came to be a

standstill and resulting the cost escalation. Contending that by

virtue of Section 3D (2) of the NH Act on publication of

declaration under Section 3D(1) of the NH Act, the subject

matter lands vested absolutely in the Central Government free

from all encumbrances and therefore the submission on behalf of

the petitioners that without payment of compensation no work

can be proceeded with is not sustainable. Hence, he urges for

vacating the interim order dated 03.08.2022 and dismiss the

writ petition. He also relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another v

State of Maharashtra and others1; Union of India v Kushala

Shetty and Others2; N.G. Projects Ltd., v Vinod Kumar Jain and

Others3 and National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd., v

Montecarlo Ltd., and Another4.

10) Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition made

submissions supporting the stand taken by the National High

Way Authorities.

11) This Court has considered the submissions made and

perused the material on record. Before appreciating the rival

contentions and considering the relief sought for in the writ

petition, it may appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of

the NH Act hereunder.





  (1997) 1 SCC 134

  (2011) 12 SCC 69

  (2022) 6 SCC 127

  (2022) 6 SCC 401





 i. Section     3A   confers       power    on    the   Central

Government to acquire land for a public purpose i.e., for building, maintenance, management or operation of a National High Way or part thereof by Notification in the Official Gazette.

ii. Section 3B of the Act confers power to enter for survey on issuance of a Notification under sub- section (1) of Section 3A.

iii. Section 3C of the Act contemplates hearing of objections of any person interested in the land to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of Notification under sub-section(1) of Section 3A of the Act and Section 3(C)(2) provides that the objections submitted under Section 3C(1) of the Act shall be considered by the competent authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Objector and passing of an order either allowing and disallowing the objections. As per Section 3(C)(3), any order made by the competent authority under sub-section(2) shall be final.

iv. Section 3D of the Act deals with the Declaration of acquisition and 3D(2) specifically provides that on a publication of the Declaration under sub-section(1), the land vests absolutely with the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

v. Section 3G of the Act deals with the determination of amount payable as compensation.

12) It is pertinent to state here that the NH Act is a special

enactment and a self contained code. As per Section 3D(2) of the

NH Act on the publication of the declaration under sub-section

(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free

from all encumbrances. In the present case it is not in dispute

that Section 3D publication, in respect of subject matter lands,

was issued on 12.04.2016 and additional Section 3D was

published on 19.01.2018. Thus, from the respective dates, the

lands in question vest absolutely with the Central Government in

terms of the above provision of law and the petitioners herein

ceased to be the owners of the lands, which are subject matter of

acquisition. In terms of the provisions of the NH Act they are

entitled to compensation only. Be that as it may. The material

filed along with the counter affidavit, which is not disputed, go to

show that the 4th respondent had passed supplementary awards

in respect of the petitioners' claims towards trees, drip irrigation,

barbed wire fencing, bore well etc. If the petitioners have any

grievance with regard to the determination of compensation in

respect of the said items, as rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the NHAI, they have to invoke the provisions of the

said Act. Section 3 G(5) of the NH Act provides that in the event

the amount determined by the competent authority (Respondent

No.4-CALA) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not

acceptable, the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator i.e.,

the District Collector-5th respondent herein. When the Act

provides for specific remedy, continuation of proceedings by this

Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the

considered opinion of this Court, is not warranted.

13) The other submission to the effect that the respondents

cannot proceed with the works without paying compensation to

the petitioners, the same merits no appreciation for two reasons:

(a) on publication of Notification under Section 3D of the NH Act,

the petitioners ceased to be owners of the land under acquisition;

(b) Their private interest is subservient to the public interest at

large.

14) At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the case

law relied on by the learned counsel for NHAI.

15) In Ramniklal N. Bhutta case (1 supra) as long back as in

1997 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inter alia held as

follows:

―The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other

similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 -- indeed any of their discretionary powers.‖

16) In Kushala Shetty case (2 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India inter alia held that the projects involving

construction of new Highways and widening of existing

highways, which are vital for the development of the

infrastructure in the country are entrusted to experts in the field

of highways and that detailed project reports are prepared

keeping in view the relevant factors like heavy vehicular traffic

and larger public interest cannot be stopped.

17) In N.G. Projects Ltd., case (3 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India dealing with the Government contracts and

tenders involving public interest / importance inter alia held that

since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and

keeping in view the intent of legislature as envisaged under

Section 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, those projects

should not be stayed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also

opined that any contract of public services should not be

interfered with lightly and in any case there should not be any

interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant

for larger public good.

18) In the light of the above settled legal position, this Court is

in complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of

the NHAI that the continuation of the interim orders would be

detrimental to the interest of public at large. Accordingly, the

interim order is vacated.

19) Keeping in view the provisions of the NH Act, more

particularly, Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition leaving it open to the

petitioners to make appropriate applications before the 5th

respondent for determination/enhancement of compensation, if

they so desire. In the event the petitioners adopt such course of

action, the 5th respondent shall pass appropriate awards, in

accordance with law.