SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17180

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA
Chunchu Venkata sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP 16638/2018



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:58981

APHC010353352018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No.16638 OF 2018

Between:

1. Chunchu Venkata sudhakar, S/o late Venkatayya, 38 years,

Service, r/o Bestavaripeta village and Mandal, Prakasam District,

and others.

...Petitioners

AND

1. Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Transport

and National Highways, New Delhi, and others.

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Naram Nageswara Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not considering the objections made by the

petitioners against the preliminary Notification dated 07.3.2018 and the

subsequent Notification dated 09.3.2018 issued by the respondent No.3

in respect of the subject matter lands as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for

consequential directions.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through online

made submissions with reference to the averments made in the writ

affidavit. He submits that the petitioners are residents of Bestavaripeta

Village and eking out their livelihood by business in the said Village. He

##PAGE2##

2 2025:APHC:58981

submits that in view of the extension of NH-544D road, which is passing

through the middle of the said Village, the businesses of the petitioners

were seriously affected and under those circumstances, the petitioners

submitted their objections on 24.2.2018. He submits that without

considering the said objections, the respondent No.3 issued Proceedings

dated 07.3.2018 and 09.3.2018. He submits that thereafter the

respondent Authorities issued another Notification dated 18.4.2018 under

Section 3(G)(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and under the said

circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to file the present writ

petition. He submits that as the objections of the petitioners are not

properly considered, the impugned Proceedings are liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant

Government Pleader made submissions with reference to the detailed

counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, to which no reply affidavit is

filed. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned Proceedings,

he submits that the objections of the petitioners were duly examined and

as the acquisition of the land for providing bypass road to NH-544D,

which is in the public interest, is inevitable, the proceedings in terms of

the National Highways Act were initiated. He also submits that as stated

in the impugned Proceedings, the petitioners would be entitled for

payment of compensation and if at all they have any grievance, they have

to work out their remedies as provided under the National Highways Act.

He submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on

record. As seen from the impugned Proceedings, the respondent No.3

while referring to the objections raised by the petitioners and taking into

account the remarks submitted by the respondent No.6, rejected the

objections of the petitioners, more particularly in view of the fact that

##PAGE3##

3 2025:APHC:58981

acquisition of the land is in the public interest i.e., laying of bypass road.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the objections raised by the petitioners are not considered, cannot be

accepted. Further, it is settled law that the interest of public at large will

prevail over the private interest. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this

Court see no ground to interfere with the impugned Proceedings and the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed. If the petitioners have any

grievance with regard to determination of compensation, they can work

out their remedies in accordance with the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top