2010 Supreme(SC) 296

2010 (3) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph,JJ.
M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2008
Decided on : 05.04.2010

IMPORTANT POINT
When several plots of land are involved in an acquisition, the objection of several individual plot owners could not be entertained even under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, particularly, because when several LA Collectors were dealing with different segments of the acquired lands, it would not be possible for one of such Collectors to take a decision with regard to the operation of the integrated project.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act,1894-Sections 4,6-Notification for Acquisition of land of appellants in Narsingi Village and Poppalguda Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the Outer Ring Road (ORR) Project for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad- The said project was for the purpose of providing an Inner and Intermediate Ring Road and an Outer Ring Road as part of the main circulation system for traffic- Objections were filed by appellants under Section 5-A of Act contending that there was a water body in the impugned alignment in Survey No.291 of Poppalguda Village that the change of alignment was illegal, since the earlier alignment was straight in shape and the impugned alignment was taking several twists and turns, earlier alignment was finalized upon scientific survey and that impugned alignment was finalized without any proper survey and verification- Objections filed under Section 5-A were rejected by Special Deputy Collector and a Draft Declaration was published under Section 6 of Act, 1894 - Challenge thereagainst- From site plans of area submitted by parties, it was clear that both two alignments touched and disturbed existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in first place- From the reports submitted by various local authorities, it was, however, clear that in order to proceed according to first alignment, respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which was not so as far as second alignment was concerned-Held in the facts of this case public interest would out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders- The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants had their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, held that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road had to give way to construction of the said road- Contention of appellants that adequate opportunity had not been given to them under Section 5A of Act, 1894, to voice their objections, held to be without substance as objections filed were duly considered by the Special Deputy Collector and rejected by his order -Writ petitions disposed of with a direction to the authorities to take all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies in the area were not unduly affected and were preserved to the maximum extent possible during construction of the remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western Sector. (Paras 30 to 33)

       Facts of the Case :

       Notification was issued herein in the instant case for Acquisition of land of appellants in Narsingi Village and Poppalguda Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the Outer Ring Road (ORR) Project for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The said project was for the purpose of providing an Inner and Intermediate Ring Road and an Outer Ring Road as part of the main circulation system for traffic. Objections were filed by appellants under Section 5-A of Act contending that there was a water body in the impugned alignment in Survey No.291 of Poppalguda Village that the change of alignment was illegal, since the earlier alignment was straight in shape and the impugned alignment was taking several twists and turns, earlier alignment was finalized upon scientific survey and that impugned alignment was finalized without any proper survey and verification. However Objections filed under Section 5-A were rejected by Special Deputy Collector and a Draft Declaration was published under Section 6 of Act, 1894 .

       Findings of the Court :

       On challenge thereagainst it was held that from site plans of area submitted by parties, it was clear that both two alignments touched and disturbed existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in first place. From the reports submitted by various local authorities, it was, however, clear that in order to proceed according to first alignment, respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which was not so as far as second alignment was concerned.Held in the facts of this case public interest would out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants had their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, held that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road had to give way to construction of the said road. Contention of appellants that adequate opportunity had not been given to them under Section 5A of Act, 1894, to voice their objections, was held to be without substance as objections filed were duly considered by the Special Deputy Collector and rejected by his order .Writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the authorities to take all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies in the area were not unduly affected and were preserved to the maximum extent possible during construction of the remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western Sector.