Decided on October 21,2019

Benda Tata Rao Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


D V S S Somayajulu, J. - (1.)This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"Pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notification dated 13.07.2018 issued by the respondents in proposing to acquire the lands for the purpose of laying the road from Achampet Junction to Old Port Junction via Vakalpudi Lighthouse, in the stretch of land from Ch.0+000 to 13+579 and new National Highway construction from Vakalapudi Lighthouse junction to Annavaram via (Upada-MaulapetaThondangi) in the stretch of land from Ch.0+000 to 40+000 in the District of East Godavari in the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same."

(2.)This Court has heard Sri E.V.S.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, learned standing counsel for the National Highway Authority of India and Sri Lakshminarayana, counsel for respondent No.4.
(3.)The essential grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the land that is proposed to be acquired by the 2nd respondent-National Highway Authority of India is the only source of livelihood for the petitioners. They also submit that the petitioners are owners of various bits of land and that the lands were already acquired two times. Therefore, their grievance is that if the land is acquired once again for the third time, they will be deprived of their livelihood totally. It is also asserted and argued that the petitioners are small farmers and that by virtue of this acquisition; they would be rendered absolutely jobless. In addition, legally it is submitted that the procedures under the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') is not followed, that the acquisition notification does not contain the names of the persons whose lands are being affected and that the notification is vague etc. These are the essential grounds which are urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned counsel also relied upon the notification that is published and argued that the notification should contain adequate and proper details, so that objections can be submitted by the petitioners. He argues that the very purpose of inviting objections would be defeated if such a vague and unclear notice is published. Learned counsel also argued that without giving an opportunity for the petitioners to sustain their objections, acquisition proceedings have been completed. Learned counsel relies upon Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and others, 2011 12 SCC 69 to argue that the necessary particulars should be published. On the basis of this judgment, it is pointed out that opportunity has not been given to the petitioners to substantiate the objections to the notification.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.