Dismissed

Challa Janardhana Rao. v. Union of India.

Telangana HC16 Sept 2016WP/31013/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting objections to land acquisition for a national highway upgradation. The petitioner argued the third respondent lacked jurisdiction as the Gazette of India notification was missing. The Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed at the admission stage with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Challa Janardhana Rao. Vs Union of India. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

[Special Original Jurisdiction]

¶3

FRIDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶4

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 31013 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Challa Janardhana Rao … Petitioner
V/s.
Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Roads, Transport & National Highways,
Ministry of Roads, Transport &
National Highways, New Delhi & Ors. … Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Raghu

¶8

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.S.Varma for R-1 & R-2 GP for Land Acquisition [AP] for R3

¶9

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶10

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 31013 OF 2016

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

¶15

mandamus to declare the orders dated 08/8/2016 passed by the

¶16

third respondent vide Rc.No. NH-216/G-1/3968/2014 under section 3

¶17

[c] [1] of National Highways Act, 1956 rejecting the objections of the

¶18

petitioner to withdraw the paper publication with regard to the

¶19

National Highway No.216 published in Sakshi daily news paper and

¶20

Deccan Chronicle on 01/06/2016 and also to conduct special survey

¶21

with regard to the National Highways, as illegal, arbitrary and

¶22

without jurisdiction and set aside the same and to pass such other

¶23

suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the

¶24

circumstances of the case.

¶25

In the writ affidavit, it is stated that a notification was issued

¶26

by the third respondent for upgradation of NH-216 into two lanes

¶27

with paved shoulders within the stretch of land from KM-195.355 to

¶28

KM-254.672 [Chirala to Ongole Section] in the Prakasam district,

¶29

¶30

State of Andhra Pradesh, published in Gazette of India vide

¶31

S.O.2035[E] dated 24/7/2015 with details of survey number-wise

¶32

land proposed for acquisition and the same was also published in

¶33

Sakshi daily in Telugu and the Hindu daily in English on 31/7/2015

¶34

calling for objections.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitioner filed objections, whereby stated

¶36

that the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction to conduct

¶37

enquiry under section 3 [c] [1] of the National Highways Act, 1956

¶38

unless and until the subject-matter of the present notification which

¶39

was published in Saakshi daily and Deccan Chronicle on 01/6/2016is

¶40

published in the Gazette of India containing all the details. The

¶41

publication of notification in Gazette of India is an essential requirement. In fact the third respondent had followed the procedure when the notification dated 31/7/2015 was published in the local

¶42

news paper by publishing the same in the Gazette of India on

¶43

24/7/2015.

¶44

¶45

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the order dated

¶46

08/8/2016 that has been passed by the third respondent purportedly

¶47

under section 3 [c] [1] of National Highways Act, 1956 is without

¶48

jurisdiction for the reason that no Gazette notification has been issued

¶49

and the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain

¶50

the objections and proceed with the acquisition process without a

¶51

notification being published in the Gazette of India.

¶52

The fact remains that in objections dated 24/7/2016 the

¶53

petitioner has not raised any objection regarding the procedure

¶54

followed under section 3 [c] [1] of National Highways Act, 1956 on

¶55

the point of jurisdiction. The respondents accordingly considered the

¶56

representation of the petitioner that the petitioner is having

¶57

agricultural land in survey Nos. 1/2A, ¼, 2/2B, 2/1, 3/8, 3/10, 4/1,

¶58

5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1 etc., of Pullaripalem village and they are using the

¶59

said lands for acqua culture and the National Highway authorities

¶60

have proposed to acquire land for widening of NH-216 into two

¶61

lanes. It is further stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that the

¶62

¶63

existing road can be extended on both sides. The proposed bypass

¶64

road alignment is having so many bends not straight and it is not

¶65

useful for the people and expose to inundation problem. He has

¶66

further stated that he came to know that a writ petition is pending

¶67

before this Court on the notification published for acquisition of land

¶68

for upgradation of NH-216 and requested to drop the new

¶69

notification.

¶70

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was informed that

¶71

proposed acquisition for NH-216 upgradation works in Prakasam

¶72

district has been taken by the Government of India duly following

¶73

the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and at this juncture

¶74

the petitioner’s claim that it is against the procedure cannot be

¶75

considered. Vide notifications dated 31/7/2015 and 01/6/2016 it has

¶76

been communicated to all the interested parties that the land

¶77

acquisition plans falling under the purview of the notifications has

¶78

been made available in the Office of the CALA. Accordingly, the

¶79

request of the objector that the map of the proposed acquisition to

¶80

¶81

be pulished in news papers is against the provisions of National

¶82

Highways Act, and his request was not considered. The detailed

¶83

enjoyment survey as per the provisions of National Highways Act are

¶84

carried out by the Mandal Revenue Officer using precise survey

¶85

equipment. The petitioner was informed that the present notification

¶86

dated 01/6/2016 is only to notify the additional and missing extents

¶87

of the same alignment notified vide the earlier 3-A notification dated

¶88

31/7/2015. The petitioner was also informed that there are no pending orders against the said notification in this court. Finally, the

¶89

petitioner was informed that the present bypass alignment through

¶90

Pullaripalem and Pandillapalli is fixed based on the detailed studies

¶91

done by the Detailed Projector Report [DPR] consultant, keeping in

¶92

view of the various factors with high degree of technical expertise in

¶93

this field and using the best technical parameters for implementation

¶94

of the project. The alignment as per the acquisition plan submitted by

¶95

the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU,

¶96

¶97

Machilipatnam confirms with the Geometrical requirements of IRC

¶98

code and topographical conditions of the area.

¶99

In view of the facts recorded above, I find no merit to

¶100

review the decision and find no merit in the present writ petition and

¶101

the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.

¶102

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this

¶103

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶104

___________________________________ JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.

¶105

16/09/2016 I s L

¶106

¶107

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶108

WRIT PETITION NO. 31013 OF 2016

¶109

Date: 16/09/2016 Circulation No. Court Master: I s L

Challa Janardhana Rao. v. Union of India.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Challa Janardhana Rao. v. Union of India.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pusala Chandra Sekhar, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its PrI. Secretary

Ganiga Chenna Kesavulu Vs a. Y. Reddy

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl), Vs The Commissioner forEmployees Compensation Act,1923

Mr. Kota Anantha Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Rep. its Secretary

Pikkili Srinivas, Vs The Intelligence Officer

Smt.v.Parvatamma W/o v.Ananthaiah Vs The State of Telangana