Point of Law: Absence of any reference to a plan in the Notification and infact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the impugned notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders notification invalid

ORDER :

1. These two writ petitions arise under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NH Act’), involving same issues and accordingly, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners challenge the notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act and the consequential declaration issued under Section 3D of the said Act as also the notification issued under Section 3G of the NH Act contending, interalia,that the same are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the said Act and sought to declare the order of respondent No.3 dated 09.02.2018 rejecting all the objections of the petitioners in toto without proper consideration and providing proper opportunity of hearing as per Section 3C(2) of the NH Act as illegal and improper and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit.

3. As per the brief facts set out in the affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions, the petitioners are the residents of different villages and own different extents of lands in different survey numbers, the details of which are stated in the said affidavits. They eke out their livelihood by doing agriculture and they are small farmers solely depending upon agricultural income.

4. A notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act vide S.O.3929(E) dated 19.12.2017 proposing acquisition of lands for construction of NH-140 at KM 0+00 to KM 41+800 from Kukkalapalli of Yadamarri Mandal to Mallavaram of Chandragiri Mandal of Chittoor District was published in ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Telugu daily newspaper on 02.01.2018 and in ‘The Hindu’ English daily newspaper on 03.01.2018. The lands of the petitioners were shown in the said notification without giving minimum particulars in respect of the same and it was stated therein that the interested persons may file their objections within 21 days from the date of issue of the notification under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act and that the same would be enquired into by a competent authority under Section 3C(2) of the NH Act. Pursuant to issue of such notification, the petitioners filed their objections within the stipulated period and the enquiry under Section 3C(2) of the NH Act was fixed on 09.02.2018. Though the petitioners attended the office of respondent No.3, he did not afford any personal hearing to the petitioners as contemplated under the provisions of the NH Act and passed an order on the same day i.e., on 09.02.2018 rejecting all the objections, making the enquiry an empty formality. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued a declaration under Section 3D of the NH Act through respondent No.1 on 24.03.2018 declaring that the lands in question are required for the purposes stated therein. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a notification under Section 3G of the NH Act on 25.04.2018 granting only three (3) days time to produce the relevant documents with regard to the claims of the interested persons i.e., by 28.04.2018.

5. Alleging that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents right from issuance of the notification under Section 3A(2) of the NH Act, passing of the order under Section 3C(2) of the NH Act and the subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law, the present writ petitions are filed.

6. Heard Mr.P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel representing Mr.N.Bharath Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent No.3.

7. (i) Mr.P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the notification issued under Section 3A(2) of the NH Act is vague and lacking in minimum particulars r