ARUN MISHRA - (1.) The appeals pose a peculiar situation. On the one hand there is a concept of sustainable development and on the other hand, several changes of alignmentwere made within a span of one year by the appellants in the matter of acquisition of theland for the construction of Outer Ring Road (in short, 'the ORR') around Hyderabad andSikandarabad. This Court vide order dated 16.10.2015 permitted the appellants tocomplete the remaining portion of the work in the ORR subject to the result of theappeal.
(2.) At present ring road has been completed and is in use and amount of approximatelyRupees Six thousand crores has been invested for the construction of the ORR. Otherdevelopment by its side has also been made.
(3.) The High Court found that with respect to certain areas i.e. survey nos. 25,26,28,29 &122, the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the1894 Act') was not issued. The High Court has also found that the change of alignmentwas made in order to benefit certain persons on political consideration or otherwise. Inthe instant case CBI investigation was also ordered and CBI found that the HyderabadUrban Development Authority (HUDA) which has been renamed as HyderabadMetropolitan Development Authority (in short, 'the HMDA') had proceeded with theacquisition of the land without preparing proper plan for proper alignment and it appearsthat alignment has been changed in order to benefit certain individuals.;