Compliance with publication and hearing requirements of the National Highways Act is essential, but non-inclusion of landowner names in notifications does not invalidate the process.

ORDER :

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

1. Since these Writ Petitions raise the same facts and the points involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, at request of all the counsel, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

2. Writ Petition Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023 and 14414 of 2023 are filed by owners of various lands seeking to declare the Notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act 48 of 1956), published in Praja Sakthi daily newspaper dated 21.11.2022, and the declaration under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 published in Gazette Notification in S.O.1366 (E), dated 22.03.2023 issued by 1st respondent, insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Writ Petition No.4510 of 2024 is filed seeking to declare the Notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, published in Hans Daily newspaper dated 14.08.2023, and the declaration under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 published in Gazette Notification in S.O.443(E), dated 02.02.2024 issued by 1st respondent, insofar as the lands of the petitioners therein viz. land in survey No.246/1B admeasuring an extent of 1.157 hectares and survey No.246/2B admeasuring 0.497 hectares, of Velpula village, Vemula mandal, YSR Kadapa district, as illegal and arbitrary.

4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire their lands for the purpose of formation of newly proposed road from KM 75.000 to KM 199.000 of proposed Bangalore-Mydukuru (Kadapa)-Amaravati/Vijayawada Green Field Corridor in the district of YSR Kadapa (for short, 'subject Green Field Corridor').

5. (a) It is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10084 of 2023, 14025 of 2023 and 4510 of 2024 that on coming to know about the proposed acquisition of land, the petitioners submitted objections/representations before the Joint Collector concerned and in the office of the National Highways Authority. But, without conducting an enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing on the objections, as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act, 1956, the competent authority seems to have sent a report to 1^st respondent stating that objections were received and the same were considered and disallowed. On the basis of the said report, the declarations under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 were notified under the impugned Gazette Notifications.

(b) It is their further case that the subject lands belonging to the petitioners fall between double trumpet interchange and the proposed acquisition of the said lands is not for the purpose of formation of highway but it would be used for commercial activity in future, in which case the provisions of the Act, 1956 are not applicable, and hence, initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the said Act is without jurisdiction.

(c) It is their further case that in the impugned Notifications issued by the authorities, only survey numbers and extents of land were mentioned, and no details with regard to names of owners of the land have been mentioned. It is their further case that as per the provisions of the Act, 1956, after publication of the Notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, the affected persons have right to submit their objections, which have to be considered by giving opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 3C of the Act, 1956. But, in the absence of publ