Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Varun Hospitality Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory K. Ravindranath, General Manager- Design and Development – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.15649 Of 2023
Decided On : 24-09-2024
For the Respondents: Y.V. Anil Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
Proper notification and opportunity to object are essential in land acquisition processes under the National Highways Act.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act 1956 Sections 3A, 3D, 3G - The court emphasized the necessity of following proper notification procedures for land acquisition, ensuring affected parties are adequately informed and given the opportunity to object, as mandated by the National Highways Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a hotel, challenged the acquisition of land for road widening under the National Highways Act, claiming improper notification and lack of opportunity to object, which violated their rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had followed the necessary procedures for land acquisition but emphasized the need for proper notification and adherence to guidelines regarding the extent of land affected.
Issues: Whether the respondents followed the proper procedure for land acquisition and whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to object to the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the acquisition process was largely followed, the specifics of the notification and the extent of land affected must be clearly communicated to the property owner.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to adhere to the guidelines for land acquisition.
ORDER :
(Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.) :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
“To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in seeking to acquire petitioners property admeasuring 4,237 50 Sq mts in Survey No 455/3, 455/3B1, 455/3B2, 455/2C of Bharathi Nagar Gunadala Vijayawada NTR District bearing municipal H.No.54-15-13, 54-15-13/1, 54-15-13/2 without following the procedure contemplated under Section 3A to 3G of The National Highways Act 1956 in its true spirit as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the Notification S.0.3877E dated 17.08.2022 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Notification S.0.92E dated 06.01.2023 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.”
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of 5433 sq.yds in Sy.No.455/3, 455/3-B1, 455/3-B2, 455/2C, Bharathi Nagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada. Initially, an extent of 323 sq.mts was acquired by the 4th respondent for the purpose of road widening/improvement of Bharati Nagar main road and 1st cross road in the year 2014. Subsequently, in the remaining extent of land i.e. 4237.50 sq.mts, the petitioner has built a 5 start international hotel in the name of Novotel Vijayawada Varun.
3. The respondents sought to acquire land for road widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH-16 in the stretch of land from Km.1095.6 to KM 1098.5 as part of 4 laning of Vijayawada- Machilipatnam section of NH-65. A Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 dated 17.08.2022 was issued by the first respondent notifying the details of land to be acquired. Since no objections were received against the said proposal, a declaration under Section 3(D) of the Act was also issued and thereafter, a public notice under Section 3G of the Act was issued on 02.03.2023, proposing to acquire 0.000632 hectares in Sy.No.455/3B1 and 0.004844 hectares in Sy.No.455/2C of the petitioner’s land for the said purpose. The petitioner made a representation dated 13.03.2023 to Respondent No.5/Vijayawada Municipal Corporation raising an objection that the subject land cannot be relinquished for the purpose of land acquisition, as the hotel building structure is standing on columns built over pile caps, group piles and contiguous piles having a gap of 50 MM to 75 MM between them, since the contiguous piles firmly act as structural members against which all the basement Post Tensioned slabs are structurally connected. The said representation was forwarded to Respondent No.3 to take necessary action. But, Respondent No.3 issued mechanical reply stating that this Court passed orders in W.A.No.401 of 2020 & batch directing NHAI to form service road in terms of Guideline No.2.12.2.1 of Manual of Specifications & Standards for Four Laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, IRC:SP:84-2014, through public private partnership and further stated that only 54.76 sq.mts of land would be acquired from the petitioner.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the notification/publication did not contain the details of the land owner, description of the property being affected, which are mandatory prescriptions for issuance of notification. If the respondents had given the ownership details, described the exact area of land in accordance with Section 3A of the Act, the petitioner would have filed his objections within the stipulated period under the Act, as such, it is contended that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner by not sufficiently describing the land to be acquired in respect of petitioner’s property in the notification.
5. It is contended that, as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the substance of the notification has to be published in two local newspapers, one of which should be in a vernacular language. The obj
