The National Highways Act, 1956 does not confer specific power on the concerned Government or the authorities to withdraw or reduce the extents of land sought to be acquired, and it does not envisage reduction of the extent of land acquired or already vested within the Government.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Notification dtd. 18/4/2018 in SO No.1701/E) issued by respondent Nos.1 & 2 under Sec. 3(A)(1) of National Highways Act, 1956; further Notification dtd. 7/12/2018 in SO No.6078(E) issued under Sec. 3D(1) of same statute; further Notification dtd. 18/1/2019 issued under Sec. 3G(3) of the same statute by the 5th respondent; further Notification dtd. 11/10/2022 in NHAI/PIU-RJY/LA/N.H216A/Kaikaram Flyover under Sec. 3G(3) of the same statute by the 5th respondent and also Order dtd. 18/6/2018 in ROC NHAI-16/Flyover/2018/1 passed by the 5th respondent, as being illegal, irregular, irrational, unconstitutional and violative of provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr.Sita Ram Chaparla, Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.S.S.Varma, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing for respondent No.5.

3. The relevant facts germane for consideration and the disposal of the Writ Petition may be stated thus:- The 1st respondent issued a Notification under Sec. 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") dtd. 18/4/2018 for acquisition of the lands mentioned therein for public purpose i.e., Building (Construction of Flyovers/ VUPs/ Widening/ Four Laning/Six Laning etc., ) Maintenance, Management and Operation of NH 16/216A in the stretch of land from Km 1005.700 to 1007.450 (Gundugolanu - Rajamahendravaram Sec. ) in the District of West Godavari. Pursuant to the said Notification, objections under Sec. 3C of the Act, were called for and on 7/5/2018, the petitioners and others filed their objections. The 5th respondent after considering the objections addressed a reply dtd. 8/6/2018. Subsequently, on 7/12/2018, a Notification under Sec. 3D of the said Act was published in the Government of India Gazette. Thereafter, a Notice under Sec. 3G (3) of the said Act was published on 18/1/2019. However, subsequently another Notification issued under Sec. 3G (3) of the Act dtd. 11/10/2022 was published in the News papers on 15/10/2022, wherein it was inter alia mentioned that the extent of land was reduced from 60 meters width to 46 meters. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on various grounds.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners made his submissions referring to the contentions/grounds formulated in the Writ Petition contending that the comprehensive objections submitted by the petitioners pertaining to the Notice under Sec. 3C of the Act were not considered in a proper perspective. He contends that there is no requirement of acquisition of the subject matter lands in view of laying of Gundugolanu - Rajamahendravaram Express Highway connecting Chennai - Kolkata National Highway and due to the same 90% of the traffic was diverted and therefore the purpose for which the construction of the Flyover was proposed vide Notification dtd. 18/4/2018, would no longer remain. The Learned Counsel also submits that as a consequence, the impugned 3G Notification dtd. 11/10/2022 is not sustainable. Without prejudice, he also contends that it is not permissible to modify the original extent and issue another Notification under Sec. 3G of the Act. It is his contention that if the respondents takes any decision to reduce/modify the extent of lands etc., sought to be acquired through the original Notification dtd. 18/4/2018, they should initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings by issuing a Notification under Sec. 3-A of the Act to enable the petitioners to file their objections to the changed extents and other aspects inter alia relating to change of alignment etc., In essence his contention is that the entire proceedings are to be withdrawn and fresh proceedings are required to be initiated.

5. The Learned Standing Counsel for N.H.A.I