WA/353/2026 of A V K VISWANATHA RAJU Vs UNION OF INDIA on 5 April 2026

1. A V K VISWANATHA RAJU, S/O. LATE A.V. NARSIMHA RAJU AGED 67 YERS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.GUDIMELLA LANKA VILLAGE, MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS (MoRTH) NEW DELHI - 110001.

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS (MoRTH) ZONE III, NEW DELHI- 110001.

4. REGIONAL OFFICER, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT- 520001.

5. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DWARAKA SECTOR NO.10, NEW DELHI- 110001.

6. CHIEF ENGINEER, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., ROAD AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, (NH AND CRF), VIJAYAWADA- 520001.

7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., ROAD AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, N.H.DIVISION, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530001.

8. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND SUB COLLECTOR, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533201

9. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533101

10. TIRUMALA YESU BABU, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O. MULAPADU VILLAGE, H/O. GUDIMELLANKA VILLAGE, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533253.

11. DAMULURI PANDA RANGA RAJU, S/O. KRISHNAM RAJU AGED

YEARS, R/O. GUDIMELLANKA VILLAGE MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533253.

12. PENUMATSA RAMA KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O. SUBBA RAJU AGED

YEARS, R/O. GUDIMELLANKA VILLAGE, MALIKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533253.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT APPEAL No.353 of 2026

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging the legal validity of the order dated 18.03.2026 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.7581 of 2026, whereby the learned single Judge has declined to grant the interim relief as sought for by the writ petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, Mr. S.S. Varma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

4. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent- Director General, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, to acquire the land for the public purpose of laying National Highway, the writ petitioner, whose land is sought to be acquired for the said public purpose, filed the aforesaid writ petition. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to him as contemplated under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and that the procedure prescribed under Section 3C of the Act, which is mandatory in nature, has not been followed and the impugned proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent are not valid under law for non- compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 3C of the Act.

5. Therefore, challenging the legal validity of the acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground, he has filed the writ petition. Alongside the writ petition, he also sought interim relief to stay the further proceedings of the acquisition till the writ petition is disposed of. In support of his contention, he has also placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of Bhimavarapu Giridhar Kumar Reddy v. Union Government of India passed in W.A.No.80 of 2012 dated 07.08.2012, wherein it is held that violation of mandatory provisions of Section 3C(2) of the Act by the authorities in failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner therein, despite the mandate of Section 3C(2) of the Act and despite the specific request of the writ petitioner therein, is illegal and it makes all the consequent proceedings under Section 3C(1) of the Act void and inoperative.

6. After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, at the admission stage, the learned single Judge opined that it cannot be prejudged that there is a gross violation of Section 3C of the Act and it requires consideration of facts and pleadings of all the parties concerned. Therefore, the learned single Judge did not exercise his discretion to grant stay of further proceedings by way of interim relief as sought for by the writ petitioner. However, it was observed that any further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notification are subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

7. At this stage or even before the learned single Judge, nothing is placed by the respondents to show that any opportunity of hearing was provided to the writ petitioner in terms of the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 3C of the Act. Therefore, whether Section 3C of the Act, which is mandatory in nature, has been complied with or not is the vital aspect required to be decided in this lis. If the proceedings are allowed to be continued without deciding the said issue, it may create further legal complications and also result in causing injustice to the writ petitioner. However, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case relating to the said issue in this writ appeal as the main writ petition is still pending adjudication before the learned single Judge. After counters are filed and after considering the pleadings, the learned single Judge has to take a final call on the said controversial issue.

8. Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submits that counters will be filed in the writ petition within a week from today and the writ petition can be finally disposed of by the learned single Judge.

9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the writ appeal can be disposed of with a request to the learned single Judge to dispose of the writ petition within two weeks from the date of this order after receiving the counters from the respondents that may be filed within a week from today.

10. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to all the respondents to file their counters in the writ petition within one week from today. Thereafter, the writ petition shall be disposed of on its own merits within one week from the date of filing of counters. The learned single Judge shall decide the writ petition without being swayed by any of the observations made incidentally in this writ appeal. Till the said writ petition is disposed of by the learned single Judge within the time stipulated above, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today relating to the acquisition of the land of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner shall cooperate for hearing of the writ petition before the learned single Judge to dispose of the same within the time stipulated above.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 06.04.2026 IBL

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT APPEAL No.353 of 2026

Dt: 06.04.2026 IBL