Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs Others on 17 April, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.03.2026
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 17.04.2026
Date on which judgment was uploaded
on the website of the High Court : 17.04.2026
APHC010409892013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 35960/2013
Between:
V.veera Swamy, Son Of Venkateswarlu, and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The Government Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V PADMANABHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2.
3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
The Court made the following:
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.35960 of 2013, 35961 of 2013,
35962 of 2013, 35963 of 2013, 35964 of 2013, 36034 of 2013,
36035 of 2013, 36036 of 2013, 36037 of 2013, 36038 of 2013,
36039 of 2013, 36040 of 2013, 36041 of 2013, 36042 of 2013,
36043 of 2013, 36044 of 2013, 36045 of 2013, 36046 of 2013,
36047 of 2013, 36048 of 2013, 36049 of 2013, 36050 of 2013,
36051 of 2013, 36052 of 2013, 36054 of 2013, 36055 of 2013,
36056 of 2013, 36057 of 2013, 36058 of 2013 and 1168 of 2014
COMMON ORDER :
Since the point involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the
same, at request of all the counsel, all the Writ Petitions are being
disposed of, by way of this Common Order.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the
action of the respondents in not attaching the plan to the
Notifications dated 30.11.2009, 27.07.2010 and 20.01.2012 and
Publications dated 14.12.2009, 21.08.2010 and 07.03.2012 issued
under Section 3A (1) & (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for
brevity ‘the Act, 1956’), in The Hindu daily newspaper, and in not
following the procedure contemplated under Sections 3A, 3C, 3D,
3E, 3G (3), (4), (5) and (7) (a) and 3H of the Act, 1956 and the
Amended Act 16 of 1997, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently,
set-aside the Publications, dated 14.12.2009, 21.08.2010 and
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
3
07.03.2012 issued under Section 3A (1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 and
set-aside the Award No.43 2011 dated 29.05.2013 passed by 5th
respondent.
3. Case of the Writ Petitioners is as follows.
(a) Vide Notification dated 30.11.2009, the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, New Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act, 1956, for building
(widening/six laning, etc) maintenance, management and operation
of National Highways No.5, on the stretch of land from KM 1182.802
to KM 1307.900 (Chilakaluripet-Rudrakota Section), Prakasam
District, expressed its intention to acquire the land falling within the
proposed right of way of National Highway No.5 from KM 1182.802
to KM 1307.900 (Chilakaluripet-Rudrakota Section) in Prakasam
District. Accordingly, a Gazette Notification under Section 3A (1) of
the Act, 1956 was issued on 30.11.2009 and it was got published in
The Hindu daily newspaper on 14.12.2009, declaring its intention to
acquire the land for the said purpose; that as some portions of the
land required for the said acquisition, were not mentioned in the said
Publication, the other Publications dated 27.07.2010 and 20.01.2012
were issued and the same were published in The Hindu daily
newspaper on 21.08.2010 and 07.03.2012, respectively.
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
4
(b) Subsequently, vide Notice dated 11.10.2013 under
Section 3H (2) of the National Highway Laws (Amendment) Act,
1997, 5th respondent directed the Writ Petitioners to appear before
them along with proof of title over the acquired lands, to receive the
compensation amount. Vide Award No.43/2011/N.H.5, dated
29.05.2013, 5th respondent passed Award calculating the
compensation for the extent acquired. The details are as under:
Extent covered Net Compensation
Sl.
Writ Petition No. Survey No. by acquisition in awarded
No.
Square Meters (Rupees)
580/1
20.24 2,25,163-00
(Petitioner No.1)
581/D
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.1)
600/A/1
20.24 2,08,431-00
(Petitioner No.1)
W.P.No.36048 of 2013 580/1
1. 20.24 2,10,208-00
(Petitioners 3 in number) (Petitioner No.2)
581/D
(Petitioner No.2) 20.24 26,147-00
601/A/12/A
(Petitioner No.3) 16.87 21,794-00
2. W.P.No.36046 of 2013 549/C/2 70.84 14,71,271-00
3. W.P.No.36047 of 2013 578/A/A1 40.48 4,39,119-00
Sy.No.578/A/A1
40.48 7,93,049-00
(Petitioner No.1)
Sy.No.582/A
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.1)
582/A
10.12 13,074-00
(Petitioner No.2)
578/A/A1
W.P.No.36039 of 2013 40.48 8,32,198-00
4. (Petitioner No.2)
(Petitioners 4 in number)
578/A/A1
40.48 8,12,744-00
(Petitioner No.3)
578/A/A1
20.24 5,68,700-00
(Petitioner No.4)
582/A
(Petitioner No.4) 20.24 26,147-00
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
5
580/1 141.68 23,45,746-00
5. W.P.No.36040 of 2013
581/D 20.24 26,147-00
547/2A
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.1)
608/A/C
40.48 52,294-00
(Petitioner No.1)
6. W.P.No.36041 of 2013
578/A/A1
40.48 8,85,418-00
(Petitioner No.1)
584/A/1
29.40 4,62,858-00
(Petitioner No.2)
7. W.P.No.36042 of 2013 578/A/A1 40.48 5,32,437-00
582/C/2B 60.72 4,30,587-00
8. W.P.No.36043 of 2013
578/A/A1 40.48 2,69,841-00
9. W.P.No.36044 of 2013 578/A/A1 5.06 92,741-00
584/A/1
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.1)
10. W.P.No.36045 of 2013
584/A/1
30.36 23,44,898-00
(Petitioner No.2)
11. W.P.No.36051 of 2013 608/A/C 40.48 5,58,261-00
578/A/A1
40.48 2,51,207-00
(Petitioner No.1)
547/A/1A
445.28 5,75,235-00
(Petitioner No.1)
W.P.No.36052 of 2013 582/C/2B
12. 202.40 19,20,996-00
(Petitioners 2 in number) (Petitioner No.1)
582/C/2B
40.48 8,77,289-00
(Petitioner No.2)
578/A/A1
40.48 2,69,841-00
(Petitioner No.2)
13. W.P.No.36054 of 2013 553/C/2 20.24 2,99,830-00
601/A/12/A
50.60 7,68,634-00
W.P.No.36055 of 2013 (Petitioner No.1)
14.
(Petitioners 2 in number) 601/A/12/A
50.60 7,68,634-00
(Petitioner No.2)
580/1 40.48 4,71,701-00
15. W.P.No.36056 of 2013
581/D 50.60 65,368-00
578/A/A1 40.48 5,24,675-00
16. W.P.No.36057 of 2013
582/A 10.12 13,074-00
17. W.P.No.36058 of 2013 584/C/B2 36.06 1,61,572-00
584/A/1 50.60 8,17,777-00
18. W.P.No.36049 of 2013 578/A/A1 80.96 8,18,843-00
547/A/2A 40.48 52,294-00
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
6
600/A/1 20.24 1,34,773-00
582/A 10.12 13,074-00
19. W.P.No.36050 of 2013 581/A/2 20.24 61,423-00
584/A/1
35.42 9,61,075-00
W.P.No.36038 of 2013 (Petitioner No.1)
20.
(Petitioners 2 in number) 584/C/B2
101.20 7,96,985-00
(Petitioner No.2)
21. W.P.No.35961 of 2013 600/A/1 25.30 32,684-00
22. W.P.No.35962 of 2013 582/C/2B 40.48 3,39,847-00
600/A/1
W.P.No.35963 of 2013 20.24 26,147-00
23. (Petitioner No.1)
(Petitioners 2 in number) 584/A/1 60.72 8,42,226-00
578/A/A1 20.24 8,92,205-00
24. W.P.No.35964 of 2013 581/C/1 121.23 14,17,743-00
582/A 30.36 39,221-00
25. W.P.No.36034 of 2013 578/A/A1 40.48 6,34,482-00
578/A/A1 20.24 8,54,894-00
608/A/C 40.48 52,294-00
26. W.P.No.36035 of 2013
603/A/2 121.44 2,16,910-00
582/A 30.36 39,221-00
27. W.P.No.36036 of 2013 584/C/B2 20.24 5,51,885-00
28. W.P.No.36037 of 2013 581/C/1 222.64 25,86,473-00
580/1
20.24 6,13,625-00
(Petitioner No.1)
584/A/1
40.48 52,294-00
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 (Petitioner No.1)
29.
(Petitioners 3 in number) 578/A/A/1
5.06 94,440-00
(Petitioner No.2)
581/A/2
40.40 52,191-00
(Petitioner No.3)
549/C/2
40.48 6,06,457-00
(Petitioner No.1)
547/A/2A
20.24 1,16,127-00
(Petitioner No.2)
578/A/A1
20.24 8,56,791-00
W.P.No.1168 of 2014 (Petitioner No.3)
30.
(Petitioners 4 in number) 581/C/1
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.3)
582/A
20.24 26,147-00
(Petitioner No.3)
578/A/A1
10.12 3,81,109-00
(Petitioner No.4)
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
7
(c) It is stated that the respondents have not followed the
procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 3A, 3C,
3D, 3E, 3G and 3H of the Act, 1956. Further, the Notifications dated
30.11.2009, 27.07.2010 and 20.01.2012 and the Publications dated
14.12.2009, 21.08.2010 and 07.03.2012 are not in accordance with
the Sections 3A (1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 and Sections 3C (1), 3G
of the Act, 1956, and the notices under Sections 3E (1) and 3H (2) of
the Act, 1956 are without any plan attached to the Notifications, due
to which, the right to file objections under Section 3C (1) of the Act,
1956 was taken away.
(d) It is further stated that the market value to be taken for the
purpose of computation of compensation is from the date of
publication of the Notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, but
the respondents considered the market value from the year 2007
onwards but not from the date of publication, and such action is
illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The present market value of the acquired
land is more than the market value per square yard and that the
respondents did not furnish the Order under Section 3G of the Act,
1956 for approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the Act,
1956. Hence, these Writ Petitions.
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
8
4. A counter affidavit, deposed by the Project Director,
NHAI, PIU, Nellore has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4,
and a separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.5-
Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, National Highway-5 &
Special Collector, P.S.Veligonda Project, Ongole. In the said
counter affidavits, the authorities denied the averments in the
respective writ affidavits and contended inter alia as follows.
(a) The Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Nellore sent requisition for
acquisition of land to an extent of 19501.24 square meters patta land
and 1983.52 square meters of Government land, situated in Martur
village of Martur Mandal for widening of National Highway-5 from 4
lane to 6 lane. The National Highways Authority of India issued
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 for acquisition of
the land and published the same in Gazette of India vide
S.O.No.3061(E), dated 30.11.2009 and the same was published in
The Hindu Daily newspaper in English and Andhra Jyothi daily
newspaper in Telugu, on 14.12.2009. After conducting detailed
survey and as per the enjoyment particulars furnished by the
Tahsildar, Martur, the NHAI authorities published Notification under
Section 3D (1) of the Act, 1956 in the Gazette of India in
S.O.No.1826(E), dated 27.07.2010, Public Notice under Section 3G
(3) of the Act, 1956 and the same was published in The Hindu Daily
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
9
newspaper (English) and in Sakshi Daily newspaper (Telugu) dated
21.11.2011. As the entire extent proposed for acquisition as per Sub-
Divisional record was not published in Section 3A Notification dated
30.11.2009, the NHAI published separate Section 3A Notification for
the missing extents vide S.O.No.1825(E), dated 27.07.2010 and
S.O.No.138(E), dated 20.01.2012, and subsequently Section 3D
Notification was also issued vide S.O.No.1670(E), dated 20.06.2011
and S.O.No.1889 (E), Dated 17.08.2012.
(b) Respondent No.5 fixed the market value of the land
basing on the sales statistics received from the Sub-Registrar Office,
Martur pertaining to preceding three (03) years from the date of
Publication under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 i.e. for the period
from 14.12.2006 to 14.12.2009, and taking into consideration of time
lag and day-to-day increase in market value, increase at the rate of
9% per year was allowed, and market value was fixed at
Rs.37,35,291/- per acre to the lands under acquisition in Martur
village. Respondent No.5 also awarded 10% on the land value under
Section 3G (2), 30% for other damages as per sub-sections 7(b),
7(c) and 7(d) of Section 3G of the Act, 1956. The valuation of
Buildings and Fixtures was done by the R&B Department and as
recommended by the R&B Department, and respondent No.5
awarded the compensation by distributing the same to the land
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
10
owners. But after receiving the cheques, they filed these Writ
Petitions.
(c) The Notification issued by 5th respondent clearly states
that any person interested in the said land may, within 21 days from
the date of the Notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of
the land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section (1) of Section
3C of the Act, 1956. The Notification further states that the land
plans and other details of the land covered under the Notification are
available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the
aforesaid office of the Competent Authority. It is stated that the Writ
Petitioners have not filed any objection before 5th respondent within
the time stipulated under the Act, 1956. It is further stated that the
Notification under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 was got published in
The Hindu daily newspaper on 22.11.2011, 11.02.2013 and also in
vernacular language Telugu, in Sakshi daily Newspaper. The notices
issued by 5th respondent under Section 3E and 3H (2) of the Act,
1956 are subsequent to passing of the Award with regard to delivery
of possession of the land which was notified for acquisition and
intimating them the details of compensation awarded to the land
owners and asking them to produce necessary documents, and it
does not require description of the land. Respondent No.5, having
dealt with Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3G of the Act, 1956, heard
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
11
the objections of the land owners, scrutinized the claims, declared
the acquisition and determined the amount payable to the land
owners towards compensation.
(d) According to Section 3G (7) (a) & (b) of the Act, 1956,
the market value of the lands under acquisition has to be fixed by
taking into consideration of the market value as on the date of the
Publication of Section 3A (1) Notification. Income Tax at the rate of
10% was deducted at source on the compensation of assets
/structures on Agriculture land, as per Circular N.H.A.I/13/LA
/Policy/2006, dated 04.05.2010, and if the Writ Petitioners are
aggrieved by the Award passed by 5th respondent, they have remedy
to file a petition under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 before the
District Collector, Ongole, who is appointed as Arbitrator by the
Central Government to decide the claim petitions. The Writ
Petitioners, having received the compensation amount, filed these
Writ Petitions by suppressing all the above facts. Hence, it is prayed
to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioners in all the Writ
Petitions, the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Union
of India, Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI
appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government
Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent No.5.
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
12
6. Firstly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that under Section 3A(2) of the Act, 1956, every
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act shall contain a brief
description of the land sought to be acquired, and as per Section 3A
(3) of the Act, 1956, the competent authority shall cause substance
of the Notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of
which will be in a vernacular language, and the purpose of the said
publication in newspapers is with a view that the persons in the
locality would be aware of the proposed acquisition of the property.
The learned counsel submits that in the case on hand, the impugned
Notifications issued under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 do not
contain the description of the land, and that no plan is attached to
the said publications, and in view of the same, the very purpose of
publications is lost and the petitioners lost right to file objections as
contemplated under Section 3C (1) of the Act.
Secondly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Notifications issued under Section 3G of the Act,
1956 do not contain details and description of the land and the
Award No.43 of 2011, dated 29.05.2013 is without there being any
Notification under Section 3G (3) of the Act, 1956 and the same is
not legal. It is contended that the notices issued under Sections
3E (1) and 3H (2) of the Act, 1956 are without giving any description
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
13
of the land and without specifying the date of Notification under
Section 3A of the Act, 1956, and that the respondents have not
followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 3A, 3C, 3D,
3E, 3G and 3H of the Act, 1956.
It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the compensation awarded by the respondents for
the lands acquired is meagre; that the respondents have taken the
market value of the lands from the year 2007 onwards, but not the
market value prevailing by date of publication of the Notification
under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, which is in violation of Section 7
(1) (a) of the Act, 1956. It is further contended that Income Tax is
not liable to be deducted from the compensation amounts payable in
respect of the lands acquired, and hence, the action of respondents
in deducting amounts towards Income Tax from the compensation
amount is contrary to law. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ
Petitions.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on
the following decisions.
(i) in Kolla Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India & others,1 wherein
it is held thus: (paragraphs 57 and 69)
1
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5603
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
14
“57. So far as the submissions on the violation of the
principles of natural justice in deciding the objections are
concerned, Section 3-C of the NH Act provides for hearing the
objections. In Marella Marithi Prasada Rao case5, this Court
held that Section 3-C deals with hearing of objections. Under
sub-section (1) thereof, any person interested in the land may,
within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A, object to the use of the
land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub-section.
Section 3-C(2) of the NH Act stipulates that every objection,
under Section 3-C(1), shall be made to the competent authority
in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof, and the
competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of
being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and
may, after hearing all such objections and after making such
further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, by order, either
allow or disallow the objections. The right to submit objections
is conferred on a person interested in the land i.e. the person
whose lands are sought to be acquired. The person interested
in the land has not only the right to submit his written
objections, but also the right to an oral hearing, either in person
or through a legal practitioner and during hearing of the
objections, under Section 3-C(1) of the Act, the person, whose
lands are sought to be acquired, would be entitled to put forth
all such contentions as are available in law.
…
69. The proposition of law is well-settled that opportunity
of hearing as mandated by Section 3-C of the NH Act is to be
provided and the same is not ritual or empty formality. That is a
valuable right and such opportunity is to be provided in
consonance with the principles of natural justice.”
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
15
(ii) in Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy v. Union
Government of India & others2, wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs
14 and 15).
“14. In the case on hand, violation of the mandatory provisions
of Section 3 – C(2) by the 4th respondent, in failing to provide
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (despite the mandate
of Section 3 – C(2) and the specific request of the petitioner in
this behalf vide his memorandum of objections dated
27.11.2008 and 04.01.2010), is established. On account of this
illegality, all the proceedings subsequent to the stage under
Section 3 – C(1) are void and inoperative and the fact of
publication of a declaration under Section 3 – D(1) would not
cure that fatal infirmity.
15. Affording of opportunity to persons whose lands are
proposed for acquisition under the 1956 Act, mandated by
Section 3 – C(1) is neither a ritual nor an empty formality. It is a
salutary provision akin to the provisions of Section 5 – A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In Union of India v. Mukesh
Hans[1]; Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja[2]; Mahender Pal
and ors. v. State of Haryana and ors.[3]; Anand Singh v. State
of U.P.[4]; Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P.[5]; and in Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar and
others[6], the Supreme Court observed that the opportunity of
hearing to the land owners to object to acquisition of their lands
is a valuable right which cannot be jettisoned for jejune reasons
and that such opportunity and compliance with rules of natural
justice is a small price which the State should always be
prepared to pay before it can deprive any person of his
2
2012 (6) ALD 58 (DB)
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
16
property. These observations of the apex court made in the
context of the Land Acquisition Act apply to the present
acquisition a fortiori.”
8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
standing counsel appearing for the NHAI and the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the requirements of
law as mandated under the provisions of the Act, 1956 have been
complied with, by the respondents, by issuing Section 3A (1)
Notification in two local newspapers, one of which in vernacular
language; that as the entire extent of land proposed for acquisition
was not published in the Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act,
1956, dated 30.11.2009, separate Notifications under Section 3A (1)
of the Act, 1956 were published on 27.07.2010 and 20.01.2012, in
respect of the missing extents; that there is no requirement under the
Statute to mention names of land owners in the said Notification, and
that the description of the land, as notified in the Notification, would
meet the requirement of law; that the Notifications clearly state that
any person interested in the said lands may, within 21 days from the
date of the Notification in the Official Gazette, object to the use of the
land, and that the land plans and other details of the land covered
under the Notifications are available and can be inspected by the
interested persons in the office of the Competent Authority; that no
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
17
objections were received within the time stipulated under Section 3C
of the Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the notice under
Sections 3E (1), which is meant for delivery of possession of the land
which was notified for acquisition, and notice under Section 3H (2) of
the Act, 1956, which is issued intimating the details of compensation
awarded to them and asking them to produce the necessary
documents, were issued subsequent to the passing of the Award
and need no description of the land, and that the lands were
acquired after strictly following the procedure contemplated under
the Act, 1956.
As regards quantum of compensation, it is submitted by the
learned counsel that the market value of the land was fixed basing
on the sales statistics received from the Sub Registrar concerned,
preceding 3 years from the date of publication of Section 3A (1)
Notification, and taking into consideration the time lag and day-to-
day increase, increase in market value @ 9% per year was allowed,
and that the valuation of the buildings and fixtures was done by the
R&B Department and compensation was awarded to the land
owners as recommended by the said Department. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel that Income Tax @ 10% was
deducted at source on the compensation awarded for assets
/structures on agricultural land, as per the Circular
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
18
No.NHAI/13/LA/Policy/2006, dated 04.05.2010, and if the petitioners
are aggrieved by the Award passed by the Competent Authority,
they can as well avail the remedy of filing an application before the
District Collector, Ongole, who is appointed as an Arbitrator by the
Central Government, under Section 3 G (5) of the Act, 1956.
Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
9. Section 3A of the Act, 1956 deals with the power of
Central Government to acquire land, etc. According to the Section
3A (1), where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public
purpose, any land is required for the building, maintenance,
management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it
may, by notification in Official Gazette, declare its intention to
acquire such land. As per Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956, every
Notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the
land and Section 3A (3) contemplates that the competent authority
shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two
local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.
10. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the Act, 1956
makes it clear that when once the Central Government is satisfied
that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management
or operation of a national highway or part thereof, then, it shall
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
19
declare its intention to acquire such land by issuing a notification in
the Official Gazette giving ‘brief description’ of the land. The
substance of the Notification is also to be published in two local
newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. ‘Any
person interested in the land’ can file objections within 21 days from
the date of publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette, to
the competent authority, in writing. Thereafter, the competent
authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of hearing
either in person or through a legal practitioner. The said exercise
will be followed by an Order of the competent authority either
allowing or rejecting the objections. In case no objection is made to
the competent authority in terms of Sectio 3C (1) or in case the
objections made are disallowed, then the competent authority has to
submit a report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a
Notification in the Official Gazette that the land should be acquired
for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3A (1) Notification.
On publication of declaration under Section 3D (1), the land vests
absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
11. Section 3E of the Act, 1956 deals with ‘Power to take
possession’. After the land is vested in the Central Government and
the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
20
under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 with respect to such land, has
been deposited under Section 3H(1) of the Act, 1956 with the
Competent Authority by the Central Government, the Competent
Authority takes steps for taking possession of the land as
contemplated under Section 3E of the Act, 1956.
12. Perused the material on record. In the case on hand,
the Special Collector, P.S. Veligonda Project, Ongole is appointed as
the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, under the provisions of
the Act, 1956, for acquisition of land for the purpose of widening of
National Highway-5, connecting Chennai-Kolkata Section, from 4
lane to 6 lane from KM 1182.802 KM to 1307.900 (Chilakaluripet-
Rudrakota Section). For the said public purpose, NHAI sent a
requisition to acquire land to an extent of 19501.24 square meters
patta land and 1983.52 square meters of government land, situated
in Martur village of Martur mandal, Prakasam district. Accordingly, a
Notification as contemplated under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956
expressing the intention to acquire the said land was issued, in
Gazette of India vide S.O.No.3061 (E), dated 30.11.2009, calling for
objections, if any, from the persons interested, within 21 days from
the date of publication of the said Notification. Substance of the said
Notification was published in two local newspapers viz. The Hindu
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
21
daily English newspaper and Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu newspaper,
on 14.12.2009. A perusal of the material on record further goes to
show that after conducting survey and after receipt of enjoyment
particulars, NHAI published a Notification under Section 3 D (1) of
the Act, 1956 in Gazette of India vide S.O.No.1826 (E), dated
27.07.2010, and a public notice as contemplated under Section 3G
(3) of the Act, 1956 was issued for the said lands on 21.1.2011 and
the same was published in two local newspapers viz. The Hindu
daily English newspaper and Sakshi daily Telugu newspaper.
13. It is also evident from the record that as the entire extent
of land required for the said public purpose was not published in the
Notification dated 30.11.2009 under Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956,
separate Notifications under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956, vide
S.O.No.1825(E), dated 27.07.2010 and S.O.No.138 (E), dated
20.01.2012, were issued expressing the intention to acquire the
missing extents of land, and substance of the said Notifications were
published in local newspapers on 21.08.2010 and 07.03.2012.
Thereafter, Notifications under Section 3D of the Act, 1956 were
issued vide S.O.No.1670(E), dated 20.06.2011 and S.O.No.1889(E),
dated 17.08.2012, and public notices as contemplated under Section
3G (3) of the Act, 1956 were issued on 22.11.2011 and 11.02.2013
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
22
and the same were got published in local newspapers. Thereafter,
5th respondent-competent authority passed Award No.43 of 2011,
dated 29.05.2013 awarding compensation for the acquired lands.
The petitioners herein, who are claiming to be owners of various
extents of lands, filed the present Writ Petitions seeking to set aside
the Publications, dated 14.12.2009, 21.08.2010 and 07.03.2012
issued under Section 3A (1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 and set-aside
the Award No.43 of 2011 dated 29.05.2013 passed by 5th
respondent.
14. On this aspect, it is the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned Notifications
under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 do not contain description of
the land and no plan is attached to the said Notifications, and in view
of the same, the petitioners could not submit effective objections
under Section 3C (1) of the Act, 1956 within the stipulated in the said
Notification and hence, the very object of publishing the Notification
is lost, and as the due procedure contemplated under the provisions
of the Act, 1956 is not followed, the entire acquisition process is
vitiated.
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
23
15. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision goes to
show that the stipulation of publication of the Notification in the
vernacular language is essentially for the reason that the villagers
would be aware of the proposal of the Government to acquire their
lands. In the case on hand, the said requirement of law has been
complied with, by the respondent-authorities by publishing the
substance of the Notifications in the aforesaid daily newspapers.
Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956 contemplates that every Notification
under sub-section (1) of Section 3A shall give a ‘brief description’ of
the land proposed to be acquired. A perusal of the impugned
Notifications issued under Sections 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 goes to
show that ‘brief description’ of the land proposed to be acquired has
been published in the said Notifications. The provisions of the Act,
1956 do not contemplate that names of the land owners whose lands
are proposed to be acquired, have to be mentioned in the
Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956. The National
Highways Act, 1956 is a comprehensive Code by itself and it is a
special legislation enacted by the Parliament for acquisition of land
required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of
a National Highway or part thereof. Unlike the provisions in other
enactments relating to land acquisition, there appears to be a
conscious departure insofar as this Act is concerned, from notifying
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
24
all particulars of land in detail mentioning name of the land owner,
etc. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Narasimha
Murthy & others, while dealing with a case of Notification under
Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House
Sites Act, 1972, held that omission to mention name of the land
owner in the Notification does not vitiate the same.
16. As regards the contention that no plan is attached to the
Notifications, it is pertinent to mention here that the Notification
states that the land plans and other details of the land covered under
the Notification are available and can be inspected by the interested
persons at the aforesaid office of the Competent Authority. A
Division Bench of the erstwhile common High Court in Government
of India v. M.Ramesh Babu & others3, while dealing with similar
contentions, set aside the Order of the learned single Judge
quashing the Notification. The preliminary Notification challenged in
the said case, contained not only name of the village, survey
number/ division number, type of the land, area sought to be
acquired, but also referred in clear terms that the interested persons
can inspect the land plans and other details of the land covered by
the Notification. The Division Bench held that it not only contained
3
Judgment dated 19.09.2007 in W.A.No.504 of 2007
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
25
the description of the land proposed to be acquired, but also
mentioned that the land plans and other details of the land covered
by the Notification are available in the office of the competent
authority and the interested persons can inspect the same, and
accordingly allowed the Writ Appeal, setting aside the Order passed
by the learned single Judge quashing the Notification, and
accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that if there was any
ambiguity in the particulars incorporated in the Notification, the writ
petitioners therein could have approached the competent authority
and inspected the land plans and other details and then filed their
objections, but such a course was not adopted.
17. Another Division Bench of the erstwhile common High
Court in Dano Vaccines & Biological (P) Limited, Hyderabad v.
Government of India4, while dealing with the similar contentions that
the preliminary notification issued under Section 3A (1) of the Act,
1956 did not divulge full description of the lands to be acquired and
fell foul of the requirement of Section 3A (2) of the Act, 1956,
rejected the same by referring to judgment in Government of India v.
M.Ramesh Babu & others (1 supra).
4
2012 (2) ALD 387 (DB)
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
26
18. In a decision in Lal Mani Jain v. Union of India5, a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that reference to plans in
respect of land proposed to be acquired and their availability with the
Competent Authority for inspection by the interested persons would
amount to substantive compliance in terms of Section 3A (2) of the
Act, 1956.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that since the impugned Notifications issued under
Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956 contain the brief description of the
land proposed to be acquired, refer to the plans in respect of the
same and availability of the plans with the Competent Authority for
inspection, it would suffice to satisfy the compliance of Section 3A
(2) of the Act, 1956. Therefore, the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, in this regard are not sustainable.
20. As regards objections under Sections 3C (1) of the Act,
1956, there cannot be any dispute that objections under Section 3C
(1) of the Act, 1956 are confined only to the utility of the lands for the
purpose. In a decision in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute
Factory & others6, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the objections
5
2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 3683
6
(2005) 13 SCC 477
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
27
can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes
other than those under Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956. The scope
for filing and considering the objections under Section 3C (1) of the
Act, 1956 is extremely limited, compared with the scope for filing
objections in Section 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The Act, 1956 gives a limited right to object to the acquisition
of the land, as such. The only objection entertainable under the Act
is non-suitability of the land for the purpose of road, etc. The writ
petitioners have not filed any objection before 5th respondent within
the time stipulated under the Act, 1956. Therefore, the petitioners
are not entitled to get the acquisition proceedings invalidated.
21. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the Notifications issued under Section 3G of the
Act, 1956 do not contain details and description of the land and the
Award No.43 of 2011, dated 29.05.2013 is without there being any
Notification under Section 3G (3) of the Act, 1956 and the same is
not legal. It is contended that the notices issued under Sections
3E (1) and 3H (2) of the Act, 1956 are without giving any description
of the land and without specifying the date of Notification under
Section 3A of the Act, 1956.
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
28
22. The notice under Sections 3E (1), which is meant for
delivery of possession of the land which was notified for acquisition,
and notice under Section 3H (2) of the Act, 1956, which is issued
intimating the details of compensation awarded to them and asking
them to produce the necessary documents. The said notices were
issued subsequent to the passing of the Award and need no
description of the land, and that the lands were acquired after strictly
following the procedure contemplated under the Act, 1956.
23. It is also pertinent to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Mazdoor Kisa Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India &
others7, wherein it is held thus:
“In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to point out that
there may be situations where conflict may arise between two
fundamental rights. Situation can be conflict on inter-
fundamental rights, intra-fundamental rights, and in certain
peculiar circumstances, in respect of some person, one
fundamental right enjoyed by him may come in conflict with the
other fundamental right guaranteed to him. In all such
situations, the Court has to examine as to where lies the larger
public interest while balancing the two conflicting rights. It is the
paramount collective interest which would ultimately prevail.”
7
(2018) 17 SCC 324
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
29
24. As regards the scope of judicial review in the matters of
land acquisition for the subject purpose, it is pertinent to refer to a
decision in Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty & others8, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: (paragraph 28)
“Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the
field of development and maintenance of National Highways.
The projects involving construction of new highways and
widening and development of the existing highways, which are
vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are
entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of
persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of
highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and
implements projects relating to development and maintenance
of National Highways after thorough study by experts in
different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping n
view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular
traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all
equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the
particular project and whether the particular alignment would
subserve the larger public interests. In such matters, the scope
of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the
acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular
project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of
law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case on hand, neither
any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established
nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore,
the order under challenge cannot be sustained.”
8
(2011) 12 SCC 69
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
30
25. The subject acquisition of land is for the purpose of
widening of National Highway-5, connecting Chennai-Kolkata
Section, from 4 lane to 6 lane from KM 1182.802 KM to 1307.900
(Chilakaluripet-Rudrakota Section). It is settled principle that in cases
of acquisition of large parcels of land, the objections of a minority of
land holders, even if well founded, can be ignored if the majority of
the land holders accept the acquisition proceedings. The ratio
behind this principle is that where a large extent of land is being
acquired for execution of a comprehensive project and the majority
of the land holders accept the scheme, it would not be permissible to
stall the entire scheme for the sake of a few land holders. This is
because the entire land is needed to implement the object of the
acquisition and deletion of a small part of the land would render the
scheme unimplementable. Such a course of action should not be
taken, even if the objections of the minority of the land holders are
tenable and well founded. It is settled proposition of law that
collective interest of the public at large prevails over the
rights/interest of some private individuals. It is stated that in the case
on hand, barring the petitioners herein, there is no objection from
any quarter. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners with regard to the objections, is not tenable. In view of
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
31
the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merits in the
present Writ Petitions, and the same are liable to be dismissed.
26. With regard to the other contention regarding fixation of
market value is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the respondents have taken the market value
of the lands from the year 2007 onwards, but not the date of
publication of the Notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956,
which is in violation of Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act, 1956. It is their
further contention that Income Tax is not liable to be deducted from
the compensation amounts payable in respect of the lands acquired,
and hence, the action of respondents in deducting amounts towards
Income Tax from the compensation amount is contrary to law. On
the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
respondents that the market value of the land was fixed basing on
the sales statistics received from the Sub Registrar concerned,
preceding 3 years from the date of publication of Section 3A (1)
Notification, and taking into consideration the time lag and day-to-
day increase, increase in market value @ 9% per year was allowed.
It is their submission that valuation of the buildings and fixtures was
done by the R&B Department and compensation was awarded to the
land owners as recommended by the said Department. It is further
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
32
submitted by the learned counsel that Income Tax @ 10% was
deducted at source on the compensation awarded for assets/
structures on agricultural land, as per the Circular No.
NHAI/13/LA/Policy/2006, dated 04.05.2010.
27. Section 3G of the Act, 1956 deals with ‘Determination of
amount payable as compensation’. Under Section 3G (7), the
Competent Authority or the Arbitrator, while determining the amount
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall
inter alia take into consideration the market value of the land on the
date of publication of the Notification under Section 3A. In the case
on hand, admittedly, the Notification as contemplated under Section
3A (1) of the Act, 1956 expressing the intention to acquire the said
land was issued, in Gazette of India vide S.O.No.3061 (E), dated
30.11.2009, calling for objections, if any, from the persons
interested, within 21 days from the date of publication of the said
Notification, and substance of the said Notification was published in
two local newspapers viz.The Hindu daily English newspaper and
Andhra Jyothi daily Telugu newspaper, on 14.12.2009. According to
the petitioners, the market value of the lands from the year 2007
onwards, but not the date of publication of the Notification under
Section 3A of the Act, 1956. Even according to the respondents,
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
33
the market value of the land was fixed basing on the sales statistics
received from the Sub Registrar concerned, preceding 3 years from
the date of publication of Section 3A (1) Notification, and
compensation was fixed by adding other statutory benefits.
Therefore, there is any amount of ambiguity as whether the market
value of the lands prevailing as on the date of publication of Section
3A (1) Notification i.e. as on 30.11.2009. Further, according to the
petitioners, Income Tax is not liable to be deducted from the amount
of compensation paid towards acquisition of the lands, assets
/structures on Agriculture land, which runs contrary to Section 194 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the same is contrary to the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Whereas, according to
respondents, Income Tax @ 10% was deducted at source on the
compensation awarded for assets/ structures on agricultural land, as
per the Circular No.NHAI/13/LA/Policy/2006, dated 04.05.2010.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, these issues
require reconsideration by the Competent Authority. Accordingly,
the petitioners are given liberty to submit appropriate
representations, along with copies of supporting documents, to the
Competent Authority, with regard to their claim of the alleged market
value of their respective lands acquired for the aforesaid public
purpose and also as regards Income Tax Deducted at Source while
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
34
paying the compensation amount to them, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On receipt of
the said representations, the Competent Authority shall consider the
same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law for fixing
the market value of the lands acquired along with attendant statutory
benefits entitled to, by the petitioners, including liability to pay
Income Tax, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
28. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the Writ
Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the
Writ Petitions.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions
shall stand closed.
—————————————-
(Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
17.04.2026
DRK
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
35
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
COMMON ORDER
in
WRIT PETITION Nos.35960 of 2013, 35961 of 2013,
35962 of 2013, 35963 of 2013, 35964 of 2013, 36034 of 2013,
36035 of 2013, 36036 of 2013, 36037 of 2013, 36038 of 2013,
36039 of 2013, 36040 of 2013, 36041 of 2013, 36042 of 2013,
36043 of 2013, 36044 of 2013, 36045 of 2013, 36046 of 2013,
36047 of 2013, 36048 of 2013, 36049 of 2013, 36050 of 2013,
36051 of 2013, 36052 of 2013, 36054 of 2013, 36055 of 2013,
36056 of 2013, 36057 of 2013, 36058 of 2013 and 1168 of 2014
17.04.2026
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
36
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.35960 of 2013, 35961 of 2013,
35962 of 2013, 35963 of 2013, 35964 of 2013, 36034 of 2013,
36035 of 2013, 36036 of 2013, 36037 of 2013, 36038 of 2013,
36039 of 2013, 36040 of 2013, 36041 of 2013, 36042 of 2013,
36043 of 2013, 36044 of 2013, 36045 of 2013, 36046 of 2013,
36047 of 2013, 36048 of 2013, 36049 of 2013, 36050 of 2013,
36051 of 2013, 36052 of 2013, 36054 of 2013, 36055 of 2013,
36056 of 2013, 36057 of 2013, 36058 of 2013 and 1168 of 2014
% 17.04.2026
#WRIT PETITION NO: 35960/2013
Between:
V.veera Swamy, Son Of Venkateswarlu, and …PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The Government Of India and Others …RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V PADMANABHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2.
3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2024 SCC OnLine AP 5603
2012 (6) ALD 58 (DB)
Judgment dated 19.09.2007 in W.A.No.504 of 2007
2012 (2) ALD 387 (DB)
2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 3683
(2005) 13 SCC 477
(2018) 17 SCC 324
(2011) 12 SCC 69
SRK, J
W.P.No.35960 of 2013 & batch
37HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION Nos.35960 of 2013, 35961 of 2013,
35962 of 2013, 35963 of 2013, 35964 of 2013, 36034 of 2013, 36035 of
2013, 36036 of 2013, 36037 of 2013, 36038 of 2013, 36039 of 2013,
36040 of 2013, 36041 of 2013, 36042 of 2013, 36043 of 2013, 36044 of
2013, 36045 of 2013, 36046 of 2013, 36047 of 2013, 36048 of 2013,
36049 of 2013, 36050 of 2013, 36051 of 2013, 36052 of 2013, 36054 of
2013, 36055 of 2013, 36056 of 2013, 36057 of 2013, 36058 of 2013 and
1168 of 2014WRIT PETITION NO: 35960/2013
Between:
V.veera Swamy, Son Of Venkateswarlu, and Others …PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Government Of India and Others …RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V PADMANABHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2.
3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
DATE OF COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.04.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Order? Yes/NoJUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
