Nomula Sai Teja Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 3129 Tel

Telangana High Court

Nomula Sai Teja Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2024

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                            AND
               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
                              Writ Appeal No.774 of 2024
JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants

(petitioners No.2 to 7 and 10).

Mr. M.Vigneswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader

for Roads and Buildings Department appears for respondent

No.1.

Mr. N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for

Land Acquisition Department appears for respondents No.2

and 4.

Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appears for

Mr. M.Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

2. This intra court appeal arises out of order

dated 22.02.2024 by which the writ petition preferred by the

appellants viz., W.P.No.24150 of 2021 has been dismissed.

::2::

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are

arrayed in the writ petition.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are

that the petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the

lands situated in Survey Nos.130, 144, 163, 164, 164/D,

164/E, 165, 165/A, 168/A and 200/A/2 of Edulagattupally

Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter

referred to as 'the subject lands'). Respondent No.3 is

constituted under the National Highways Authority of India

Act, 1988 (8 of 1988) with an object to develop, maintain and

manage the National Highways in the country. The procedure

with regard to acquisition of land and matters connected

thereto are dealt with under the National Highways Act, 1956

(for short 'the Act'). A policy viz., Bharatmala Pariyojana was

framed by the Central Government for four laning of National

Highway 563 (for short 'NH-563). The aforesaid project was

entrusted to NHAI. Accordingly, the four laning project ::3::

between Jagtial-Karimnagar-Warangal Section of NH-563 was

entrusted to NHAI for implementation and maintenance. A

notification under Section 3A of the Act was issued

on 05.06.2020 for acquisition of land for formation of four

laning of NH-563 between 26.3 kms to 83.3 kms of Jagtiyal-

Karimnagar-Warangal Section in Karimnagar, which includes

lands in Edulagattupally Village. The aforesaid notification

was published in two daily newspapers viz., Mana Telangana

(Telugu) and Hans India (English) on 13.06.2020. Thereupon,

petitioners 2 to 9 and 11 submitted a representation

on 11.01.2021.

5. Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 3A(1)

of the Act on 28.01.2021, declaring the intention of the

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to acquire the

notified lands. Thereafter, a notification under Section 3D(1)

& (2) of the Act was issued on 29.01.2021, which was

published in the two daily newspapers viz., Mana Telangana ::4::

(Telugu) and Hans India (English) dated 03.02.2021.

Thereafter, a notification under Section 3G of the Act was

published on 28.02.2021. Petitioners 3 to 5, thereupon,

submitted a representation to the District Collector,

Karimnagar, by which objections to acquisition of land were

submitted.

6. Thereafter, another notification under Section 3(D)(1)

& (2) of the Act was issued on 08.04.2021.

7. Petitioners 3 to 5 again submitted a representation to the

District Collector, Karimnagar on 19.04.2021.

8. Thereafter, petitioners challenged the validity of the

notification dated 29.01.2021 in W.P.No.24150 of 2021,

inter alia on the ground that instead of land measuring 50 feet,

65 feet is being acquired and the land should be acquired on

both sides of the proposed road whereas the same is being

acquired only on one side of the road. Learned Single Judge, ::5::

by the impugned order dated 22.02.2024, dismissed the writ

petition. Hence, this intra court appeal by petitioners No.2 to

7 and 10.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners No.2 to 7 and 10

submitted that on each side of the proposed four lane

road, 50 feet of land is required to be acquired whereas the

land to an extent of 65 feet in width is being acquired, that too,

only on one side of the road. It is submitted that there is no

justification for acquisition of land only on one side of the road

and, that too, to the extent of 65 feet. It is further submitted

that the power of acquisition is being exercised with an ulterior

motive for the benefit of some persons. Attention of this

Court has also been invited to the notification

dated 31.10.2017, which was published in the newspaper

on 16.11.2017 in support of the contention that the land on

both sides was proposed to be acquired.

::6::

10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent No.3 has submitted that the Courts are not at all

equipped to decide on the viability or feasibility of a particular

project and whether a particular alignment would sub-serve the

public interest. It is further submitted that the alignment of the

road has been decided on the basis of the advice given to the

authority by an expert committee. It is also pointed out that no

allegation of mala fides has been made against the officers of

respondent No.3. It is contended that no case for interference

in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made

out, more particularly, because the project deals with

construction of new highways and widening and development

of existing highways, which are vital for development of

infrastructure in the country and in case an interference is

made, the completion of the project would get delayed, which

in turn, will effect public exchequer. In support of his

submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the

decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.

::7::

Kushala Shetty 1, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of

Maharashtra 2 and Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority v. S.B.Kirloskar 3.

11. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in

Kushala Shetty (supra) held as under:

"25. The plea of the respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of the national highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the national highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw a dubious conclusion that the decision

2011(12) SCC 69

1997 (1) SCC 134

2020 (15) SCC 449 ::8::

and actions of the appellants are tainted by mala fides.

28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can ::9::

nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."

12. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that

the projects involving construction of new highways and

widening and development of existing highways are vital for

development of infrastructure of the country. The projects

have been entrusted to the experts in the field of highways and

it comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in

the field of highway development and maintenance. The

NHAI is implementing the project relating to development and

maintenance after thorough study by experts.

13. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the

notification issued under the Act, award has already been ::10::

passed on 10.05.2022 and petitioners No.8 and 11 in

W.P.No.24150 of 2021 have even received the compensation.

The project is virtually complete except for a small stretch.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

15. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

___________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 07.08.2024 LUR