ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….issue appropriate Writ, Order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to take possession of the land belonging to the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1-70 cents situated in Survey No.40 of Konthanapadu village in Kankipadu Mandal in Krishna District in pursuant to the acquisition proceedings proposing to acquire the land in Survey No.40/1, by projecting as if there is sub-division though there is no such sub-division and issuing the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s objections by giving false reasons as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to proceedings dated 08.05.2019 passed by the 4th respondent…..”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is one of the possessors of land to an extent of Ac.6-15 cents in R.S.No.40 of Konthanapadu village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, adjoining NH-9/ NH-65 i.e. road leading from Vijayawada to Machilipatnam. The respondent authorities proposing to widen the said existing two-lane road into four- lane road, when fixed poles in the land of the petitioner without acquiring the same and without following due process of law, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.25911 of 2007 and this Court granted stay and finally disposed of the writ petition recording the statement of the learned standing counsel representing the respondents that by that time no notification had been issued and only on mere apprehension, the petitioner filed the writ petition and further directed the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s possession, unless under due process of law. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondents published notification on 01.10.2008 under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 proposing to acquire an extent of 6950 Sq.Mts. and to the said notification the petitioner submitted a detailed objections under Section 3A(i) of the Act stating that the said notification was issued only to accommodate some rich landlords even by deviating from the norms and in fact, the respondents ought to have laid a straight road without a curve and on account of curve by proposing to lay a road through the land of the petitioner, the very purpose of public safety is affected. It is further stated that the respondents, without giving any opportunity to explain as to the objections raised by the petitioner and without conducting proper enquiry, straightaway issued notification under Section 3(D) and also further notification under Section 3(G) inspite of the reminder to the 4th respondent about the objections and also requesting to provide personal hearing. However, as the respondent authorities have issued notifications under Sections 3(D) and 3(G) of the Act without informing the outcome of objections raised by the petitioner, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1134 of 2010 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide orders dated 24.11.2011 on the ground that the petitioner failed to question the declaration issued under Section 3(D) of the Act whereby vesting of the land attained finality. Aggrieved by the above said orders dated 24.11.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2012 and the Division bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide orders dated 07.08.2012 declaring the notification dated 24.09.2009 issued under Section 3(A) and the public notice dated 01.05.2010 issued under Section 3(G) as invalid and inoperative, however, the Division Bench was pleased to give opportunity to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner intimating the date of hearing and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity.

It is further case of the petitioner that under Section 3(D)(iii) of the Act,