The writ petition was originally filed for a mandamus to set aside notification No.G2/25049/2011, dated 30.01.2012, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) by respondent No.2 in respect of 3957 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.491 of Aliyabad Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.4797 of 2013 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in taking possession of 5815 sq. yards of land in the said survey number out of an extent of Acs.5.23 guntas and handing over the same to respondent Nos.6 and 7, as illegal.

The petitioners have also filed Contempt Case No.765 of 2012 alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 23.04.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.14082 of 2012 in W.P.No.11156 of 2012.

I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. K.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

The petitioners claim to be the owners of Acs.5.23 guntas of land in the abovementioned survey number. It is their pleaded case that without issuing any notification under the provisions of the Act, the official respondents allegedly handed over an extent of 5815 sq. yards of land out of the abovementioned extent of Acs.5.23 guntas to respondent Nos.6 and 7 for construction of over bridge on the State Highway of Hyderabad-Karimnagar-Ramagundam (Rajiv Rahadari) and that when the said fact has come to the knowledge of petitioner No.3 on 05.11.2011, the petitioners got issued a legal notice to the official respondents and that thereafter the official respondents have issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 04.02.2012 notifying an extent of 3957 sq. yards of land even though they have taken possession of 5815 sq. yards of land. The petitioners thereafter filed the present writ petition questioning the said proceedings. The petitioners further pleaded that had the notification been issued before starting construction over their land and an enquiry been held, they would have satisfied the official respondents and that there was no need for construction of over bridge.

This Court by order dated 23.04.2012, while referring to the instructions reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that no possession of the site was delivered to respondent Nos.6 and 7, granted interim direction to the said respondents to stop further construction over an extent of 5815 sq. yards of land. The petitioners filed Contempt Case alleging that despite the said interim order, respondent Nos.6 and 7 continued to carry on construction work. As regards the writ petition, as noted hereinbefore, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in order to question taking over possession of an extent of 5815 sq. yards.

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 – the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Malakunta, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, it is inter alia averred that the Nodel Officer, Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation, Karimnagar, submitted a requisition for acquisition of land in various extents of land for the purpose of 4-laning of Rajiv Rahadari, that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has directed to submit proposal for acquisition of the said land; that accordingly the said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 01.02.2012 that the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, approved the draft notification on 30.01.2012 and that the same was published in the Gazette on 31.01.2012. The counter affidavit also gave various da