Point of Law: Land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” there is sufficient compliance of the requirement under Section 3-A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. These two writ appeals would arise out of the common order dated 09.04.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 37218 of 2017 and 47461 of 2018, wherein the respective writ petitioners have assailed the land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening and developing NH-16 in Pendurthi Mandal including Saripalle village in Prakasam District.

2. In W.A. No. 280 of 2021 filed against W.P. No. 47461 of 2018, writ petitioners’ land admeasuring 61,700 square meters in Sy. Nos. 116, 120, 121, 122, 270, 276 and 278 of Saripalle village, is the subject matter of acquisition, whereas in W.A. No. 302 of 2021, filed against W.P. No. 37218 of 2017, writ petitioners’ land to the extent of 1778 square meters in Sy. No. 117/3 and 7202 square meters in Sy. No. 118/2 of Saripalle village is said to be acquired. The acquisition in respect of these lands had been challenged in the writ petitions.

3. The writ petitioners challenged the notifications issued under Section 3-A and 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”) on the ground that notification dated 28.07.2017 did not state that “the land plans and other details of the land covered under the notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the aforesaid office of the competent authority” therefore, the requirement of Section 3-A has not been followed. They were also challenged on the ground that the notification under Section 3-D published on 27.09.2017 does not mention the notification dated 28.07.2017, therefore, the mandatory requirement of mentioning of all the notifications had not been followed.

4. Referring to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477 and Radha Krishna and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1973 SC 1150, it was argued that, in the absence of brief description of the property having been provided in the notification, therefore, being in violation of Section 3-A, the acquisition must fail and, consequently, there is no public purpose for the subject acquisition. It was also argued that before proceeding to issue the notification for acquisition, a survey is necessary to delineate the land and the same having not been done, the entire process is void ab initio. It was also argued that acquisition is for widening of road, however, the part where the writ petitioners’ land would fall is so wide that it covers the land much more than what is required for widening of road. On this basis, it is put forth that the acquisition is unnecessary and, as such, there is no public purpose.

5. The respondent-NHAI defended the writ petitions on submission that the subject land was being acquired for the purpose of creating a trumpet access to the National Highway, which is very much clear from the plan produced by the NHAI along with its pleadings. It has been argued that description of the land given in column 5 of the notification dated 19.10.2016 is sufficient description to meet the requirement of brief description and, further, the description by giving survey number and sub-division in the survey number, would clearly inform the affected persons that their land is affected. According to Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for NHAI, three notifications issued under Section 3-A of the Act, should be treated as one primary notification on 19.10.2016 to which two amendments dated 13.06.2017 and 28.07.2017 have been carried out. Subsequent amendment notifications cannot be treated as superseding the earlier notification, but the same are only supplementary notifications. It was further put forth that 38 objections were received against the notification and were considered. The writ petitioners have submitted their objection after the last date of submission, i.e. 25.11.2016 and, as such, the same could not have been considered, as held by Hon’ble the Supreme