Bheemavarapu Nagireddy, Vs The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

JAGARLAMUDI MALLIKARJUNA RAO,, S/O NARAIAH, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, AGED 72 YEARS, D.NO. 1- 34-204-24/1, MARUTHI NAGAR ROAD, GUJJANAGUNDLA, GUNTUR - 522006

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1.

¶15

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR,

¶16

2

¶17

VIJAYAWADA

¶18

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION, & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR.

¶19

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT, -

¶20

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED, H.NO. 1- 89/1, 4TH FLOOR, PLOT NOS 42 AND 43, PHASE I, KAVURI HILLS, MADAPUR, HYDERABAD - 81 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶21

IJM INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, H.NO. 1-89/1, 4TH FLOOR, PLOT NOS 42 AND 43, PHASE I, KAVURI HILLS, MADAPUR, HYDERABAD - 81 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶27

2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)

¶28

3.S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)

¶29

3

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶31

Writ Petition No.434 of 2015

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in giving/handing over an extent of 128 square meters, by sub-dividing it as D.No.139/1A2B, which forms part of the approved 40-feet road in D.No.139/1A of Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, to respondents 5 and 6 for their office premises, which is meant for ingress and egress of the owners and users of plots and lands in D.No.139/1A of Kaza village, Mangalagiri mandal, Guntur district, to the service road of National Highway No.5 and proposing to construct a boundary wall blocking the said ingress and egress, as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and consequently, to restrain the respondents from blocking the said road either by constructing a compound wall or in any manner.

¶34

Case of the petitioners herein is that petitioner No.2 owns and possesses Ac.1.95 cents of agricultural land and also house sites in D.No.139/1A of Kaza Village. Petitioner No.1 and his wife own and possess Ac.2.50 cents of land in the said D.No.139/1A of Kaza Village. Petitioner No.3 and his son own and possess two house sites admeasuring 560 square yards in the said D.No.139/1A of

¶35

4

¶36

Kaza Village. Several others also own and possess different extents of small residential house plots/sites and agricultural lands in the said D.No.139/1A of Kaza Village.

¶37

It is stated that the total extent of land in D.No.139/1A is about Ac.300.00 cents and that there exists an approved layout of VGTM UDA bearing L.P. No.12/2008, read with File No.E2/39/2008, for an extent of Ac.4-65 cents in the said D.No.139/1A. On the southern boundary of the Vijayawada Tollway Private Limited building under construction, there exists a 40-feet wide VGTM-approved layout road meant for ingress and egress to reach the respective plots from the western service road of the National Highway. Except for the said road, there is no other access from the National Highway to reach the petitioners’ lands. The said road is an approved road and the same stands vested in the local Gram Panchayat/Urban Development Authority.

¶38

It is the case of petitioners that since the petitioners herein and others are residing in the said locality, they are entitled to use the road to reach the service road from the National Highway. In any event, if any wall is constructed by the respondents covering the service road and the VGTM-approved layout road, it is obvious that the petitioners and others would lose their valuable right of passage

¶39

5

¶40

to reach their lands. In this connection, the petitioners herein submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2 in the year 2015 with regard to the handing over of certain land by the petitioners for the public road. All the relevant details and events have been set out in the said representation, including the hardship that would be caused to the petitioners in the event a compound wall is constructed, as it would severely affect their access to their lands.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several representations have been made to respondent No.2 herein, but no action has been taken by the said respondent. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted a fresh representation dated 27.12.2025 mentioning the difficulties being faced by the petitioners and other residents of the locality.

¶42

In view of the contents of the representation made by the petitioners herein, this Court is of the opinion that, without going into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 27.12.2025 submitted by the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

6

¶44

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court, on an earlier occasion, had granted an order of status quo and that the said order was not extended from

¶45

time to time thereafter. Nevertheless, since this Court deems it desirable to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation within a period of four (4) weeks, the status quo order passed by this Court shall be maintained for a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

It is needless to mention that, as and when the respondents pass orders on the representation made by the petitioners, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.

¶47