A V K Viswanatharaju vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 788 AP

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         &
      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                WRIT APPEAL No.816 of 2022

  A.V.K. Viswanatha Raju, S/o. late A.V. Narsimha Raju, aged
  62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudimella Lanka village,
  Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District
                                                  ... Appellant
                            Versus

  Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road
  Transport and Highways, New Delhi, and others
                                               ... Respondents

  Counsel for appellant         : Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, Sr.
                                  Counsel for Mr. V.V. Satish

  Counsel for R.1 to 3 & 5      : Mr. S.S. Varma, S.C.
  Counsel for R.4               : G.P. for Transport
  Counsel for R.6 and R.7       : Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Sr. Counsel
                                  for Ms. Sodum Anvesha

                             JUDGMENT

Dt.09.02.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This intra-court appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters

Patent, is preferred against the order dated 10.10.2022

passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.28273

of 2021 filed by the writ petitioner challenging Notification SO

No.2563/E, dated 25.06.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent

proposing to acquire lands of the writ petitioner along with

-2- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.816 of 2022

other lands in the stretch of National Highway No.216 from

KM 126.1 to KM 10.8 of East Godavari District, as illegal,

arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the National

Highways Act, 1956.

2. The writ petitioner owns lands admeasuring Ac.0.67

cents, Ac.0.33 cents and Ac.0.19 cents in Sy.No.654/1, 654-

12, 654-9 and Ac.1.37 cents in Sy.No.656-5A, Ac.0.35 cents

in Sy.No.661/2A2 and Ac.0.53 cents in Sy.No.663-1 of

Gudimellanka village, Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari

District, which are subject matter of acquisition under the

subject Notification, along with other lands. The acquisition is

for formation of two-lane bypass road to NH 216 at the

stretch of 126.1 KM to 10.8 KM from the bypass to Narsapur

Town Road. Writ petitioner submitted objection to the

Notification on 15.07.2021 stating that if the National

Highway road passes through the middle of the land,

agriculture will be affected as there is an ancient water tank

over the land, which is used for fetching water for drinking

and presently for his cattle and also for irrigation. The

Tahsildar inspected the lands and submitted a report

confirming the existence of two tanks. Thereafter, the

-3- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.816 of 2022

3rd respondent along with the 4th respondent reviewed the

alignment and agreed to change the design from KM 18.200

to 19.900 subject to the condition that if the new land losers

agree to give no objection, the alignment can be changed.

According to the writ petitioner, there are 10 survey numbers

in the modified alignment out of which one survey number

belongs to him, four survey numbers are Government lands

and 5 survey numbers are private lands. Therefore, there will

be minimal acquisition in the modified alignment.

3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition

finding that the landowners who will be affected under the

proposed alignment have not consented for the proposed

alignment and that majority of the landowners in the

proposed alignment are small and marginal farmers, whereas

the writ petitioner is a big farmer having Ac.12.52 cents of

agricultural lands. It is also held that due to the existing

alignment, the writ petitioner alone would suffer to an extent

of Ac.3.00 cents, however, if the alignment is changed, more

than 33 farmers who own small extent of land and solely

dependent on agriculture, would suffer. It was also found

that the argument of the writ petitioner that the existing

-4- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.816 of 2022

alignment is in a curved manner and the new alignment if

approved will be like a straight line and thereby reduces the

distance by one kilometre is also incorrect, because the

distance would be reduced only by 96 metres; thus, there will

be no substantial cost reduction in the new alignment.

4. The learned single Judge has balanced the pros and

cons of the original alignment and the new alignment to

conclude that number of small and marginal farmers will be

adversely affected if the new alignment is approved, whereas

the writ petitioner is a big farmer and that there will be no

substantial cost reduction.

5. It is settled law that writ court should be slow in

interfering with the decision taken by experts. Before

proceeding to acquire land for construction of National

Highways or widening thereof, a Detailed Project Report

(DPR) is prepared by experts considering the extent of land

required for acquisition. Therefore, an individual cannot be

allowed to raise objection that the alignment prepared by

experts should be changed only for the reason that his lands

will be affected by acquisition. It is not the case that the

proposed alignment would cover only Government lands and

-5- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.816 of 2022

it is clear that the same would affect 33 small farmers. If the

lands of the writ petitioner are excluded from acquisition,

other group of persons would be adversely affected.

Therefore, present is not a case where this court should

exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

to compel the respondents to change the alignment. The

learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition

preferred by the writ petitioner and we find no reason to

interfere with the same.

6. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

             Sd/-                                  Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

MRR