B Srinivas Reddy v. Transport Bhavan

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction in IA.No. 1of 2O23 dated 1210712024 passed in W.P.No. 931 1 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. B. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAMU, SC FOR NHAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3to5: AGP FOR REVENUE J WP NO: 16569 OF 2023 Between: B. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Occ. Business Aged about 42 years Rl/o BHEL MIG 1683 R'c'Puram' Hvderabad - 502032 ...pETrroNER AND Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001 '1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Road and Transport 2. The National Highways Authority of lndia, The project lmplementation Authority cum Project Director Bharatmala Pariyojana (ANDOLE-JOGIPET) Sangareddy District Telangana State

3. Thetompetent Authoritytum Revenue Divisional Officer, Andole - Jogipet Division, Sanga Reddy District Telangana State

4. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 5. The Tahsildhar, , Choutakur Mazda, Sanga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification 5.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the '1st respondent under Section 3(D)(1 ) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8.165212022 dated 2OlO3l2O23 issued by the Respondent No.3 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 2810412022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications S.0.1866(E) dated 1910412022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 2410412023 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular,. violative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles oi natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification S.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 'lst respondent under Section 3(DX1) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8.165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.O4.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification 8.0.1866(E) dated 1910412022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 along with representation dated 2410412023 4 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the Notification S.0.1772(E) dated-.1810412023 issued by the 18t respondent under Section 3(DX1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8,165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the objections of the petitioner daled 281O412022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications S.0.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 2410412023 pending disposal of Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the PetitionersMrit Petitioners to AMEND MAIN PRAYER PROTION BY DELETING : "lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the notification S.0.1772(E), dated 18.O4.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent under Sec.3 (D)(1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr.No.B/652i2022, daled 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 28.O4.2022 filed under Sec, 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.0.1866(E),dated 19.'104.2022 issued under Sec.3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and Repiesentation daled 24.O4.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of the Provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural and consequently set aside the Notification 5.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 lssued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DX1) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification 8.0.1866(E) dated '19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 along with representation dated 24.04.2023 and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case" by ADDING the following: lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more 5 particularly a WRIT oF MANDAMUS dectaring the Notification 5.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1st respondent under section 3(DX1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No Bt6s2r2o22 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022 filed under section 3(c) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifica{ions S.o.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 24.o4.2023 together with Notifications 5.0.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 is iflegat, arbitrary, irregular, vrolative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification 8.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 isiued by the 1st respondent under section 3(D)(1) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8.165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.o4.2022 filed under section 3(c) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.0.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 34 of National Highways Act,.1956 along with the Notifications 8.0.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 along with representation dated 24.04.2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. The competent Authority cum Revenue Divisionar officer, Andote - Jogipet ^ Divisiqn, Sanga Reddy District Telangana State 2. The District Colleltor, Sanga Reddy District 3. The Tahsildhar, ChoutakuiMandal, Sanga Reddy District. AND 1 B. Madhusudhan Reddy, S{o B. M.ohan Reddy, aged about 42 years, R/o BHEL MIG-1683, R.C. puram, HVOeraOaO 'tiOZ-Og2 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministrv of Road and ^ flangpo$ Tralsport Bhavin, S-ansad Marg Nriw Delhi i1O0O1 -- - 3. The Nationar Highways Authority of rndial The proiect rmprementation _ Directoi Bharatmala irariyolana' iAN OOLE_ {ytlr.oLtV_. c_um proj€ict JOGIPED Sangareddy District Telangana State ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS (Respondents No.2&3 are not necessary parties to this petition) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction in lA.No. 1 ot 2023 dated 12to712024 passed in W.P.No. 16569 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. B. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAMU, SC FOR NHAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3to5: AGP FOR REVENUE WP No: 16572 OF 2023 Between: B.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Aged about 39 years R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R'c'Puram' Hvderabad - 5o2o32 ...pETraoNER AND

2. 3 4 5 The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Road and Transport Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 1 10001 The National Highways Authority of lndia The project lmplementation Authority cum Project Direct, Bharatmala Pariyojana (ANDOLE-JOGIPET) Sangareddy District Telangana State The Competent Authority Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Andole - Jogipet Division, Sanga Reddy District Telangana State The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District The Tahsildhar, Choutakur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification 5.0.1772(E) dated 1810412023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DX1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8/652/2022 daled 2Ol.O3l2O23 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications 8.0.1866 (E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 21 .04.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification 5.O.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DX1) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8,165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.O4.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of 't National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.0.1866(E) daled 191O4t2022 issued under Section 34 of National Highways Act, 1956 along with representation dated 2410412O23 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification S.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1"t respondent under Section 3(DX1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8/652/2022 daled 2O.O3.2O23 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications 8.0.1866 (E) dated 19.04-2022 isSued under Section 34 of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 21 .O4.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification S.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DXl ) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 81652t2022 dated 20.O3.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.04-2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.0.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 along with representation daled 24.O4.2023 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to AMEND MAIN PRAYER PORTION BY DELETING " lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a wRlT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification S.0.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1"t respondent under Section 3(D)(1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8,165212O22 daled 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the 8 objections of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 34 of National Highways Act, '1956 and representation dated 24.04.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notificetion 5.O.1772 (E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1't respondent under Section 3(DXl) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8.165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.O.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 34 of National Highways Act, 1956 along with representation PAGE No.3 dated 24.04.2023 and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. by ADDING the following : lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification S.O.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1St respondent under Section 3(DX1) in pursuance of the Endorsement in Lr No 8,165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 without considering the objections of the petitioner daled 28.04.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 34 of National Highways Act, 1956 and representation dated 24.04.2023 together with Notifications S.O.1866(E) dated-19.04.2022 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violative of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification S.O.1772(E) dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 1"t respondent under Section 3(DX1) along with the Endorsement in Lr No 8,165212022 dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 by considering the petitioners objections dated 28.O4.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 in pursuance of the Notification S.O.1866(E) dated 19.04.2022 issued under Section 3,A of National Highways Act, 1956 along with the Notifications S.O.1866(E) dated

19.O4.2022 along with representation dated 24.O4.2023 9 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Competent Authority Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Andole Jogipet Division, Sanga Reddy District Telangana State

2. fhe District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 3. The Tahsildhar, Choutakur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District AND ...,PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

1. B.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.B. Mohan Reddy Aged about 39 years R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502032 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. fhe Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Road and Transport Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001 3. The National Highways Authority of lndia Thg project lmplementation Authority cum Project Direct, Bharatmala Pariyojana (ANDOLE-JOGIPET) Sangareddy District Telangana State ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (Respondents No.2&3 are not necessary parties to this petition) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction in lA.No. 1 of 2023 daled 1210712024 passed in W.P.No. 16572 of 2023 and dismiss the writ Petition as devoid of merits Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V. B. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAMU, SC FOR NHAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3to5: AGP FOR REVENUE l0 WP No: 1595 OF 2024 Between: R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502032 'Business

1. B Srinivas Reddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Aged about 45 years , Occ. Business 2. B Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Aged about 42 years , Occ. Fl/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502032 3. B.SudhakarReddy, S/o.B. Mohan Reddy Aged about 39 years , Occ- - Business R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502032 ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The union of lndia, Ministry of Road and Transport Rep. by its Secretary Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 1'10001 The National Highways Authority, The project lmplementatio Project Director Bharatmala Pariyojana (ANDOLE-JOGIPET District, Telangana State n Authority cum ) Sanga Reddy 3. The Competent Authority Cum Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), For Regional Ring Road Andole Jogipet Division, Sanga Reddy District , Telangana State

4. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 5. The Tahsildhar, Choutakur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification S.0.3550 (E) dated OBIOB12O23 issued by the 1"t respondent under Section 3 (D) (1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 2610912022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, '1956 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violation of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification S.0.3550(E) dated 08/08/2023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DX1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 26/09/2022 fted under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.4191(E) dated 0810912022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 1l lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners / Writ Petitioners to AMEND MAIN PRAYER PORTION BY DELETING " if is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court seeking a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature bf a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notification S.0.3550(E) dated 08.08.2023 issued by'ihe 1"t respondent under Section 3(D)(1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 26.09.2022 tiled under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, t 6SO and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violation of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification S.0.3550(E) dated 08.08.2023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(DX1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 26.09.2022 tiled under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications 5.0.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 issued under Section. 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case" by ADDING the following: lt is lherefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Nofification S.0.3550(E) dated 08.08.2023 issued by the '1" respondent upder Section 3(D)(1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 26.09.2022 filed under Section 3 (C) of National Highways Act' 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications S.O.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, i956 together with Notifications 5.0.419'l(E) dated 08.09.2022 is illegal, arbitrary, irregular, violation of the Provision of National Highways Act, 1956 and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notification 8.0.3550(E) dated 08.08.2023 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3 (D) (1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 26.09.2022 filed under Section 3(C) of National Highways Act, 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications t2 S.0.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 along with Notifications 8.0.4191(E) dated 08.09.2022 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the Notification 5.0.3550 (E) dated OBtO8l2O23 issued by lhe 1't respondent under Section 3 (D) (1) without considering the objections of the Petitioner dated 2610912022 filed under Section 3 (C) of National Highways Act, 1956 and providing opportunity to the Petitioners in pursuance of the Notifications S.0.4191(E) dated 08/09/2022 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 pending disposal of Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Competent Authority Cum Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), For Regional Ring Road Andole Jogipet Division, Sanga Reddy District , Telangana State

2. The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District 3. The Tahsildhar, Choutakur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

3. B Srinivas Reddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Aged about 45 years , Occ. Business R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502032 B Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.B. Mohan Reddy Aged about 42 years , Occ. Business R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 5O2O32 B.SudhakarReddy, S/o.8. Mohan Reddy Aged about 39 years , Occ- - Business R/o.BHEL MIG 1683 R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 5O2O32 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

4. The union of lndia, Ministry of Road and Transport Rep. by its Secretary Transport Bhavan, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001

5. The National Highways Authority, The project lmplementation Authority cum Project Director Bharatmala Pariyojana (ANDOLE-JOGIPET) Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State (Respondents Nos.4&5 are not necessary parties to this petition) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders in lA.No. 1of 2023 dated 121O712024 passed in W.P.No. 1595 of 2O24 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits l3 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. B' SUBRAHMANYAM Gounsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SoLICIToR GENERAL oF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAMU, SC FOR NHAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3to5: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P. Nos.931 1 16569 & 16572 of 2023 and 1595 of 2024 COMMON ORDER Since the lis involved in these Writ Pe[itions is ouc and thc same, they are [aken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this common order

2. Heard learncd counsel for the petitioncrs, kr:rrned D5' Solicitor General oi India, learned Government l)leader for Land Acquisition, Sri M.Ramu, learned SLanding counsel appearing for the respective contesting respondents in all thc u'rit petitions, and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1"' respondent-authorities had issued notifi<:ation, dt.08-08.2023, undcr Section 3D(1) of the National Fiighways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'), without considcrir-rg the objections of the petitioners, dt.26.O9.2022, filcci under Section 3C(1)- of the Act, 1956 and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

4. It is-contended that the action of the 1.t respondent in issuing the impugned notification wit-hour grilnting opportunity of hearing IS illegal, arbitrarv-, contrzrn lo the 2 { mandate under Seclion 3C(2) of lhe Act, 19.56 ar-rd also in violation of principle s of nalural justice . 5- Petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners and pattadars o[ difierent extcnts ol land in survey Nos 248 and 253 of Shivampet Village, Sanga Reddy District, respectively; and that they also obtained permission tc convert the use of the said land from agriculture to non- agriculture by toltowing due process of law and paying requisite fee.

6. It is the lurther case of Lhe petitioners that while they got part ol their land cortverteci to non-agriculture and are developing thc same, the lsr respondent had issued notification, dt.Oa.Og.2022, under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 proposing to acquire certain lands of the petitioners for building (widening/ four managemen t and operation of national highway, in the laning, etc.,) maintenance, stretch of'land from 9.56 km to 18.183 k. (Andol-Jogipet) in Sanga Reddy District; and that in the aforesaid notihcation, the lands of the petitioners in survey Nos.248 and 253, are shown at SI.No. 14 & 18 for being acquired, and called upon to file objections to the Draft Declaralion of Acquisition within 2 1 days from the date of said notification' \ 3

7. It is the further case o[ thc pctitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the 1'r respondent, they have submitted their objections on 26.09.2022; and that though they had submirted rhc alorcsaid objections well within the time period of 2 1 davs as specihed in the Notification, the 1.r responde nt, without granting an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 3C(2) ot-the Act, 1956, had issued norificarion, dr.Og.Og.2O23, ur-rder Section 3D(1) of the Act, 1956, n,herein the lands of the petitioners are sho'*,n at serial Nos.43, 66 & 67 for acquisition to an extent of Ac.0.336 I grs., Ac.O. 1743 grs., and Ac.O. lg2 I gts., respectively.

8. Petitioners further contend that the respondents have issued the notification under Section 3D ol the Act, 1956 on 08.08.2023, nearly after about (1 t) months after thcy filing objections on 26.09 .2022 to the Notification, di.Og.Og .2022 issued under Section 3A of the Act, 1956. It is also the contention of the petitioncrs that though they had filed objections on 26.O9.2022, the rcspondcnts have issucd notice of hearing after six months viz., 13.03.2023, directing rhe objectors to attend the personal hearing on 20.03.201)3, thereby giqing onlv a 7 days, rime. \ 4

9. petitioners further contend that though the noticc of hearing is dt. 13.o3.2023, the same was recerved by the pe titioners on phone through whatsapp on 17.o3.2023: that srnce the petitioners were given short notice of personal hearing of three (03) days, requiring them to appear on 20.O3.2023, they requested three (O3) r.r.eeks time to engage a counsel to defend their case; and that in spitc of the petitioners making a request for grant of time to appear for personal hearing, the I s( respondent, r.r,ithout considering the aforesaid request made by the pelitioners, had issued the impugned notification under Section 3D of the Act, I956 on O8.O8.2O23 rejecting the oi_rjections of the petirioners in a summary manner, without considering thc same in correct perspective. 1O. Thus, the petitioners contend that the rmpugned notification issued under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 is without rollowing the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956 and thus, seek for setting aside the same.

11. Respondents No.2 & 3 llled their separate counter affidavits. 5

12. The 2nd respondent by the counter affidavit while . contending t hat the acquisition of land covering five villages is not intended for widening of the proposed national high u,ay, but in fact, is for proposed development of Green Field Expressway on Northern side of Hyderabad (RRR) Stretch . from KM 9.560 to KM 18.183 (Length 8.623 KM) under Bharatmala Pariyojana in (5) villages ol Chowtakur Mandal, Andole Jogipct Division, Sangareddy District, covering Shivampet, Vcndikole, Venkatakishtapur @, Angadi, Lingampally and Korpole Villages; and that the 1st respondent had issued three notifications under Section 3A covering five (05) villages, nomeLg i/ 3,\ notification dt.79.04.2022 lor in Phase-t; tJ Adclitional 3A n6til-rcation, dt.08.O9.2O22 for Phase-ll, and iirl Additional 3A notification dt.03.O8.2023 for Phase-tl[.

13. Thc 2L.r rcspondent, by the counter affidavit had furtl-rer contended that on the respondents-authorities issuing the lrrst 3A notification, dt.19.O4.2022, the petitioners herein have filed their joint objections, dt.26.O9.2022.

14. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that the

3.d respondent had considercd the objections received/filed by the petitioncrs ht:rein to the 3A notificarion, dt.19.O4.2022, 6 and to the additional 3A notification, dt.08.O9.2022, along with objections hled by the other land owners, and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for their commen ts and appropriate replies; that on lhe 3'd respondent for-u'arding the objections receivcd, the 2"d rcspondent sr.rbmittcd its replies to all the objections; and that the 3'd respondent, by considering the replies submitted by the 2nd respondent, had issued notices to all the claimants / pattadars, including the writ petitioners herein, uide notice, dt. 13.03.2023, directing the petitioners and other interested clalmants/ paftadars to appear for personal hearing fixed on 20.O3.2023.

15. By the counter affidavit it is contcnded by the 2"d respondent that during the personal hearing held on

20.O3.2023, the objections filed by the petitioner and similarly placed claimants/ pattadars were heard and disposed of by the 3'd respondents-authorities 'as per the procedure by passing. appropriate orders and communicated the same to the petitioners and other claimants / pattadars.

16. By the counter affrdavit it is also contended that since, the petitioners did not choose to appear for personal hearing scheduled on 20.O3.2O23, the respondents-authorities have passed/issued order/endorsement rejecting lhe objections 7 hled under Section 3C of the Act, 1956 and communicated the same to the petitioners herein 17, It is the further contention ol the 2"d respondent that only after disposing of the objections by the 2,,d respondent by issuing endorsement only, the responden ts-authorities have issued notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 on O8.Oa.2O23, and thus it is contended that the action of the respondents-authorities in issuing 3D notification is by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956, and hence, the impugned procecding is not vitiated or contrary to the Act, I956.

18. The 3.d respondent by the counter affidavit while not controverting the claim of the petitioners of their land in survey Nos.248 and 253 of Shivampet Village, Sanga Recldy District being acquired, had contended that the request of the petitioners by their replies, dt.26.O4.2022 and dt.26.O9.2022, as to not to -acquire the land, change alignment and allotment of land to land, cannot be considered and the same was communicated to thc petitioners by issuing endorsement, dt.20.o3.2023. 8 ( the counter atfidavit, had were informed under the

19. Thc 3'd rcspondent, by contended that the petitioners Endorsement, d,1.2O.03.2023, that as per the Act, ts no provision to consider the request made by the petiLioners and that they would be paid compensarion as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O l3_ 1956, therc

20. The 3.d respondent, by its counter affidavit, had further contended that since, the petitioners failed to avaiI the opporruniry of hearing granted to them on 20.O3.b023, the respondents-authorities, by duly considering the objections filed to the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, had rejected thc same, and issued notification under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 acquiring the la.d in survey Nos.248 & 253 for RRR purpose ujde S.O.No. IZ72(E| & GazcLte No.1692, dt.lA.O4.2023. Similarly, in respect of the proposal for Phase-lJ uD., Additional 34 Notification covering the land in survey No.248 & 253 of Shivampet Village, was notified by rssuing Additional 3D Declaration urde S.O.No.3SSO(E), dt.08.08.2023, and the 3rd respondent Gazette No.3397, dt.08.08.2023. Thus, prayed for vacating the interim order dt. 12.07.>0?3 and to dismiss the Writ petirions 9

21. I have taken notc oI thc respective contentions urged

22. Though the petitioners claim to have filed their detailed objections to the notification issued under Section 3A ol the Act, 1956 seeking to acquire part of their land for the purpose of development o[ Green Field Highway, it is to bc noted that the chalienge to the notification issued under Section 3A oi the Act, 1956 is very limited. Unless and until the objectors, like petitioners, show thar the acquisition of their land is not for public purpose and t he said land sought to be ucquired is not required for building (widening/ four lanir-rg, etc.,) maintenance, managemcnt and ope.ration of national highway or a part thereof, the said objections, which are hled like the normal objections against a general land acquisition would be of tittle relevance.

23. It is to be noted that acquisition of land undcr the Act, 1956 is a compulsory acquisition and the scheme of section 3A of the Act,- 1956 varies n'irh the Scheme of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Righr to F.air Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlemenr Act, 2013. Thus, challenge to a notification issued undcr Section 3A of the Act, l!)56 is very limited or minimai and, unless and until by the objection 10 hled under Section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956, it is shown that the acquisition would not mect the object of 'use o;f the land'(emphasis supplied bg Court) for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Scclion 3A of the Act, 1956, such objections filcd do not mcrit consideration-

24. For convenience, the relevant provisions of the aforementioned three Acts, are extracted hereunder: Section 3A & 3C(I) of the ational Hithways Act, t956 Scction 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 3A. Power to acquire lend, etc.- (1) where Lhc Cenlral Governmcrt rs satrsied for a pubtrc purpose allr iand ls requLrcd hu!d!! a, nr.Intq!a!!s, _. ar maJraqctncnt qpllAllon of q nauonal hreht!,av Dart it may, by lbslsql notrficatron in Official Cezctte. declare ils lntcntron to acqure such land. Eve rotlhcatlon under sub sechon (1) shall grvc a bnet descnpllon of the land. The compctent authonty _shall caus€ the sllbstance o[ the notificalron (wo local pubhshed r newspapers, one or whrch u,1ll bc ln a vernacular langlrage HearinB of objections. 3C (3) (2t (r) 449__!qt'so,r rn tcrcsLed rn $e l?urd may, wlthin twenty one days lrom tlle date of pubhcatron notiflcatron undet sub seclion (1) of seclon 3A, use of ltry llql]d for Lhe _ _pqrM!.:_ 5A. Heariog ofobjections. - (l) -Aru person rntercstcd in :Lqy land $,hrch has been r(tuli.d rrnder sechon 4, sL:b sl]cuon (I), as berng nccdcd or lkclY to be needed [or a pubhc purpose or Company may, Iq-lthm thrty days from the date of rhe publicauon oI the notrficationl, object to the acqulsrtion of the Iand or o[ any tand in thc loca-lity, as t}Ie case may be. 12) I,;vcry obJection under sub sectron (l) shal1 bc made to thc Collector in wnun8, and Collector shall tlve the objector an opportunity of berng heard lin person or by any person authorized by him in this behall or by pleader and sh:r-ll, after hearrng all such objccuons and after malong such turcher rnqulry, rf any, as he Lhinks nccessary, [erther make a rePort in resPect of the land whrch has been notrlicd under section 4, sub_section (l), or make d lcrent rcports in resPect of drffcrent parcels of such Section 15 of Right to Fair CorEpensatloo atrd Transparency in Land Acquisltion, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

15. Hearing of objections.- (ll Anu persol intcrested in any land which has been noufied under sub- sectron ll) of section 11, as belnt requrred or hkely ro be requrred for a publ,c pu rpose, may wrthrn slxty days from the date of pubLcation of prcliminary notificatron, object to- (a) the a.rea and suitability of laid proposed to be acquired; (b) tustilication olfered for public purpose; (c) the fndings of the Social lmpact Assessment report. (2) Every objection under sub'section (l) shall be made to the Collector in wrltint, and the Collector shall give thc objector an opportunity or belng heard nr person or by any person authoriscd by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearin8 dl obJcctions and after malong such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makcareportInresPect 11 land, Lo rhe appropriare Goverr)mcnt, contarnlng his recommendatrons on thc ()bJcctrons. rogether \(,lLh thc record ol rhe Proceedlllgs held by hrm. for the decrsron of Lhar Governrncrtl. Thc dccrsion IappropnaLeCovernmentl on the oblectlons shall be fina1. (3) For the puryose of drLs sectron, a person shall bc deemcd ro rnterested ln land who would be enhtled ro clarm an lntcrcst ln compensatlofl Lhe land were acquircd under tils Act.l mentioncd rn thar sub' section. (2) Every objcctron Lrnder sub-scctrolr (l) shatl be madc ro rhc competent au Lhor ltv rn writrng and shalt scr out the grounds thcreof the competenl authority shall grve the ob]ector ar) opporLunrty of being heard, cirhcr ln person or by a Icgrl practitioner, and ma],, after heanng all such ob.Jections and a-fter making such furrher enquiry, it anv, as $e competenl authorl(y thinks necessar],, by order, ert}ler allow or disallow the obicctrons Explaiatron.-For Lhe purposes of thrs sub secuon, "legal practiL1oner" ha:j lhc same mearnmg as it1 clausc (i) ot sub-sccrion (ll ol section 2 of tlle Advocatcs Act, 196l 5 ot L96l t of the land \r,hrch has bccn no[ficd uoder sub. scctron (l) of scctron I I, ()r r)rake dlllcrcnl reports ln rcspccr of dlfferent par.cls ol such land, to appropriare Cov(rrrmcllt, contatnlng his rccommendatrons on (hc objeclions, together wrth the record o[ the procccdinSs held by hlm along wrth a separatc rePorr giung rhcrern the approxrmarc cost or land acqulsLtron, particulars as ro th,r number of irfcctcd farnihcs hkely to be reseLtled, for decrsion Co!'r'rnment. {3) The decrsron of appropria( GovernmenL on lhc obiectrons made u ndcr sub sectlon (2) shall l)c final

25. A perusal of the objections as filed by the petitioners would show that the petitionerg, not having raised any objection as to the said acquisition of land cannot br: uscd for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Secti<>n 3A of the Act,

1956. It is only such objections filed dealing with .use of THE /and'sought to bc acquired, are required to be r:onsidered by the authority by passlng an order eithcr allowing or disallowing the objections by recording its reasons, before proceeding to issue declaration of acquisition under Section 3D of the Act, 1956.

26. Though the petitioners have contendcd that the impugned declaration issued under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 to be in violation of Section 3C(2) of rhc Acr, 1956, as L2 having not been issued after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' it is [o be noted that when large extents of lands are sought to be acquired by the respondents under the notification, thcre cannot be a cons€nsus among all the ob.lectors to a common date o[ personal hearing' 27 . Thus, the authorities are only required to issue notice of hearing to all the objectors, whoever have filed their objections to appcar for pcrson:rl hearing on the date hxed by the authority, and it is for objectors to make their own arrangements either by appearing themselves in-persop or by a legal practitioner, ott thr: said date fixed '

28. The petitioners in the present case n'hile admitting to the fact of having filed objections to the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 on 26'09 2022' however' on being issued with hcaring notice' dt' 13 O3'2O23' requiring them to appear for personal hearing on 2O'O3 2023 ' did not attend/appear for personal hearing on the ground that they could not engagc a counsel to defcnd their casc due to short notice and soughl time of three (03) weeks' On the said request for grant of time being turned down' the petitioners did not choose to appear in-person before thc 3'd respondent torciteratetheirob.lectionsaStohowtheacquisitionofland 13 canno[ be put to use for the purposes menlioned in Section 3A of the Acr, i956.

29. As.noted hereinabove, where large extent ol lands are sought to be acquired, there cannot bc a common clerte suiting all the objectors to appear for hearing and [hus, the authority is required to grant an opportunity of hearing by fixing a date and consider the objections filed, wherever the objcclors do not choose to appear on the date fixed.

30. In the facts of the present case, since, the pt'litioners did not choose to appear on the date fixed for pcrsorial hearing, the further steps lakcn by the respondents authorities rejecting the objections filed by the pctitioners to the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. 1956 and proceeding to issue declaration under Section 3D of the Act, 1956, which is duly gazettcd on 08.08.2023, cannot held as having been issued in violation ol mandatory requirement of granting opportunily of hearing under Section 3C(2) of the Act, 1956 or the impugned declaration having been issued in violation of principles ol natural justice, more so, \,hen the objections hled by the petitioners are in the nature of objections tg the land acquisition by the authoritres and not \ in relation to thc trse of the land', lor the purpose or purposes 1,4 mentioned 1n Section 3A of the Act, 1956 viz., building, maintenance, management and operation of national highway or part thereof. Thus, such rejection of objections irled cannot be equated to non consideraLion

31. [n similar circumstances, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Neeti Deuelopment & Leasing Put. Ltd. & others v. Union of India & Othersl (Speaking through the Hon'ble Si Justice Alok Aradhe, as his Lordships then utas), by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vioeka Nand Sethi u.chairman, J and Ba:nk Ltd.z, had held that: "Where the objections fled bg the claimants/ pattadars do not touch upon the requirement prescibed under Section 3C of tle Act i.e., use of land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in 3A of the Act, and the said objection hauing been outstde the puruietu of Section 3C of the Case, such hearinq on.. the said objections tuould haue been an empty formolity. " JZ ihough the petitioners by their objections frled, have raised an objection as Lo the alignment and non-requirement of construction of trumpet, and also formation of the subject 'w.p.No.3123 of 20 73 dt.22.o7.20L5 ' 1zoos1 s scc ::z 15 private / Personal road., on the ground of agricultural lands getting disturbed or the lands for which they have obtained conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture for setting up their business law that aclivities, getting aftected, ftrstlY, it is trite interest has to give waY to matters of land acquisltlon as the said the public interest, in the acquisition would sub-serve the Iarger public interest lSee Y(r"n,;nd. Expresswag Industriat Deaelopment Authoritg Etc' Vs Shak;tmtla Education And Wetfare Societg'&t Ors' Etc'e]' and secondly, though the claim of the petitioners for change of alignment and construclion of Trumpet interchanges' it is to be noted that neither the petitioners nor this Court has technical expertise to decide as to what would be the right design or land required for the such construction and the steps that are to be considered for such construction' and is better left to experts in the held like NHAI being a specially constituted for the said Purpose.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union oJ India os. Dr. Kushala Shettg and others4 held that: r 2022 scc online sc 655 'zorr (rz) scc og I6 "28. Here, it u,tilt be opposite to menllon that NHAI Ls a professionally managed. stc.tutory body ltaving expertise in the field of deueloprnent and maintenance of National HigluLays. The projects inuoluing cortstn)ction oJ neu.t hightuays and widening and deuelopment of the eisttng higfut'ags, uhich are uital _fo, deuelopment of infrastruchtre in tlle country, are entrusted to experts in the fteld of highutags. It comprises of persons hauing uast knouledge and expertise in the fteld of highuag deuelopment and mainte nance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to deuelopment and maintenonce of National Hightuags after thorough study bg experts in different feLds. Detailed proJect reports are prepared keeptng in uieut the relatiue factors including intensitA of heauy uehicuLar traJfc and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the uiabilitg and feasibility of the particttlar project and uthether the portiaLlar alignment uould subserue the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope o[ judicial reuieu.t is uery limited. 'lhe Courl ccLn nullifg the acquisttion of land and, in rarest o-f rare cases, tLrc pofiicular project, if it is found to be ex facte contrary to the mandate of lau't or tainted due to malo fides. In the case in hand, neither any uiolation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proued. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained".

34. Having regard to the settled position of law and analysis of the scheqe of the Act, 1956, this Court is of the considered view that the challenge by the petitioners to the Dcclaration, \ t7 dt.O8.08.2023, issued under Section 3D of the Act' 1956 ts without any valid basis and has to fail.

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed No order ,r" ,o .o"1". Interim order granted earlier, if any' in thesc writ Petitions, shall stand vacated 36- Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending i[ any shall stand closcd. SD/-MOHD DEPUTY REGI TSMAIL S-TBAB:+ /TTRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, o' i 3ffi 33ls SSlJ^B, BHR#E$fti,lf^H6iYt%'f'6?f3fL'*'.*' ; +i?3"',:,:'31 ,o* REVENUE Hish court for the state of rerangana' at . t*":ttSg"-ttko*,, sc FoR NHAr toPucl

5. Two CD CoPies BM |-l l5 HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 COMMON ORDER 4, ,I ) ). 1 rtE ST4r t- 2 B APn 2025 r) 01-.;,,^-1-,g'1-O WP.Nos.9311,16569 &16572 ot 2023 A 1595 of 2024 DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS cofl4 z fr"tr'