Point of Law: Since acquisition of land is for the purpose of four laning of national highway, which is of public interest, interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This common judgement will dispose of both the writ appeals and the connected interlocutory applications.

2. We have heard Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners.

3. Respondents as writ petitioners had filed W.P.No.7374 of 2017 seeking the following reliefs:

“this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in attempting to acquire the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.443 444, 445 of Kandi Village Sangareddy Mandal, presently Kandi Mandal of Sangareddy District for the purpose of the proposed 4 Lane Road on NH.161, Sangareddy-NandedAkola Road without acquiring the land on the west of the existing Mamidipally road and without any notice on the petitioners being arbitrary unconstitutional and opposed to law besides being capricious, bad and opposed to Art.300A of Constitution of India, with a consequential direction against the 2nd respondent to follow the acquisition procedure for such road widening purely in accordance with the plan as made available to the Revenue authorities by taking the measurements of 240’ on either side of the road from the middle of the existing road to Mamidipally by following the provisions of the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Area Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and Rules 2014 (Act 30/2013) and to pass....”

4. From the above, it is seen that the writ petition was filed by the respondents opposing the action of the appellant herein who was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the writ petition to acquire the land of the petitioners for the purpose of four laning of N.H.161 for the stretch covering Sangareddy-Nanded-Akola without acquiring other lands and without notice to the respondents - writ petitioners.

5. Appellant had filed counter affidavit objecting to the writ petition.

6. Learned Single Judge, while hearing the writ petition, took note of the contention of the writ petitioners that alignment of the road from N.H.9 to Mamidipalli village was finalised but a departure was sought to be made from such alignment. According to the writ petitioners there was already in existence a small cart track route. For the purpose of widening the road, there ought to be acquisition of equal extent on either side of the cart track route. Instead entire lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired. Learned Single Judge referred to the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent (appellant) and the plan which was allegedly accepted by the competent authority for widening the road. At that stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that writ petitioners did not have any objection to such plan. After recording the statement of learned counsel for the writ petitioners, learned Single Judge, vide the order dated 27.04.2018 disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the 2nd respondent (appellant herein) to proceed with the acquisition after taking note of the above observation. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.04.2018 reads as under:

“The petitioners refer to annexures P-3 (Page Nos.35 and 38) to show that the alignment of road from NH-9 to Mamidipalli Village is finalized and now there is departure from the accepted alignment of the road. The further objection of petitioners is that a small cart track route is in existence as on date. For the purpose of widening the road into a width of 200 ft, there ought to be acquisition of equal extent on either side of the cart track road. Hence, the writ petition.

The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit and explained the technical details for finalizing DPR and has placed on record the plan accepted by the competent authority which is being implemented for widening the road. The same is marked as annexure R-5 (Page Nos.98 & 99). Accordi