The procedure under Sections 3G and 3E of the National Highways Act was duly followed in passing the awards.

JUDGMENT

M Venkata Ramana, J. - The petitioners are challenging the award No.12/2013/NH-5 in Rc.No.4211/2011(SDT) dated 27.12.2013 and revised award No.06/2015/NH-5 in Rc.No.4211/2011(SDT) dated 16.11.2015 in this writ petition aggrieved on account of acquiring the lands claimed by them for the purpose of widening the existing 4-lane road in to 6-lanes of a stretch of National Highway No.5, particularly at Venkatapalem village.

2. An extent of 2,41,063 Sq.mtrs in Venkatapalem village of Tullur Mandal, Guntur District was proposed for acquisition by the Central Government for public purpose for formation of Vijayawada bypass as a part of, for widening and extending 4-lane into 6-lane of National Highway No.5 from Vijayawada to Gundugolanu section from K.M.0-0040 to K.M.16.000 in exercise of its powers conferred by sub Section (1) of Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956. An award was passed thereon in Rc.No.4211/2011(SDT), dated 27.12.2013 by the 4th respondent. It shall be called hereinafter as, 'the 1st award', for convenience.

3. In respect of an extent of land covering 9431 Sq.mts.of Venkatapalem village in Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District was acquired for the same purpose stated above by the Central Government invoking the same powers conferred under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act upon passing an award therefor by the 4th respondent in Rc.No.4211/2011(SDT), dated 16.11.2015. It shall be called hereinafter as, ' the 2nd award', for convenience.

4. The principal contention of the petitioners in questioning these awards, more particularly, with reference the 1st award is that the prescribed procedure under National Highways Act in terms of Section 3G and Section 3E was not followed and that they were not given an opportunity to present their claims in respect of their individual extents.

5. They further contended that they were directed to appear by notification published in 'The Hindu' English daily and 'Andhrajyothi' Telugu (Vernacular) daily pursuant to the public notice dated 10.01.2013 in respect of an alleged award enquiry under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act in the office of the 4th respondent at 11.00 a.m. Their further contention is that they did visit this office to file their objections where they were informed that another date would be fixed for such purpose, in respect of which personal notices would be issued for hearing. The petitioners further contended that no notices as such were issued nor any date was fixed depriving them of reasonable opportunity of presenting their claim.

6. Thus, the petitioners questioned the claim of the 4th respondent that an enquiry was conducted on 31.01.2012 where statements of land owners or enjoyers or their representatives were stated to have had been recorded. They also questioned the manner of mentioning such an enquiry in terms of Section 3G of the National Highways Act in the 1st award, followed by sub division measures upon survey.

7. Thus, the determination of the compensation by the 4th respondent is stated by the petitioners as just a paper work without duly following the prescribed procedure upon recording the statements of the land owners or enjoyers or the interested persons and which is not in terms of Section 3-A to J of National Highways Act. In this process they also pointed out improper mentioning of names relating to petitioners nos.3,15,27,29,30,31 and 33.

8. The petitioners further contended that the procedure in terms of Section 3E of National Highways Act for taking over possession was not followed in as much as by the time of proposed action to take possession, there should be determination of compensation as well as deposit of the said sum to the credit of the competent authority viz., the 4th respondent. They also contended that never such amount determined was disbursed or distributed or paid to any of these land owners or users