Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 42 (AP)

M. Yella Reddy v. Government of India

2008-01-25

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 4-12-2007 and granted interim stay for a limited period and the same was further extended for a further limited period on 27-12-2007. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by R.3. 3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for the purpose of convenience, in short, it would be referred to as 'the Act'), dated 29-8-2005 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8-9-2005 is contrary to Section 3-A (1) to (3) and consequential notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.G1-826/04, dated 8-1-2006 published in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3(g) of the Act, insofar as the petitioners lands are concerned, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and consequently direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Sy.No.52/2, 53, 54/2, 79, 80, 81 and 55/2 of Chinna Tekuru village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners had taken this Court through the Sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H of the Act and also had taken this Court through Section 3J of the Act and would explain that inasmuch as the particulars or details as contemplated by Section 3A of the Act had not specified in the notification, the notification itself is liable to be quashed so far it relates to the lands of the petitioners. The learned Counsel also in particular had taken this Court through the contents of para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that when a request was made by the writ petitioners under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the information, different particulars had been furnished by the self-same authority and in view of the same, serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners and even on this ground, the notification is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would submit that, inasmuch as, such parties are to file objections, unless the particulars are furnished, effective meaningful objections in this regard cannot be raised and hence, the object of these provisions may have to be appreciated and in the light of all the facts and circumstances since serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners because of the non-furnishing of the details or particulars in the notification impugned and also misleading particulars furnished to the petitioners while a request was made under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the notification is liable to be quashed and a fresh notification to be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Counsel for writ petitioners had pointed out that it was specified in the counter affidavit that no compensation had been taken yet. The learned Counsel relied upon several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. On the contrary, Sri S.S.Varma, the learned Counsel representing respondents had taken this Court through the counter affidavit filed by R.3 and would maintain that it cannot be said that the notification is devoid of particulars and in fact, the self-same notification had been called in question by certain other writ petitioners similarly placed relating to other properties and this Court recorded certain findings and had disposed of the said writ petition with suitable directions. In the light of the same, the contention that the notification to be quashed on the ground of the devoid of particulars or omission to mention particulars cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would further maintain that the objections which were made within time had been considered and certain additional objections made beyond time cannot be considered since objections to be made within a period of 21 days as per Section 3C of the Act being mandatory, such contention also cannot be raised by the writ petitioners that even to belated objections are to be considered. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions would maintain that it may be true that some information had been furnished when a request was made by the 1st writ petitioner under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on a careful analysis, the said particulars are only clarificatory in nature in relation to the particulars which had been furnished in the notification and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that these particulars are misleading or in any way in conflict with what had been furnished in the original notification. Hence, viewed from any angle, especially, in the light of the decision of this Court in C.RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, 2008(1) ALD 165 , the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same may either to be dismissed or to be disposed of on similar lines. The learned Counsel also would submit that inasmuch as the Award was not made, the competent authority would consider even such additional objections if any by passing the Award. The learned Counsel also pointed out that even on passing the Award, the petitioners are having a remedy to invoke the remedy relating to enhancement of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator. 6. It is stated by the writ petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the 1st respondent issued a Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act on 29-8-2005 for the lands situated in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that this notification was published in Telugu Daily Newspaper on 8-9-2005 but not as contemplated under Section 3A (1) to 93) of the Act and that in the said notification, particulars of the lands, structures, trees, tumbs and other particulars were not depicted in accordance with Section 3A (1) to 93) of the Act. It is also stated that in pursuance of the said notification, the writ petitioners filed objections to the 3rd respondent by stating that in the notification their lands are in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that the 3rd respondent having received the objections did not give any opportunity of being heard and no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 3C of the Act. The mis- description of the property sought to be acquired in the notification contravening the provisions of Section 3A (1) to (3) of the Act and those vitiates the notification on the basis of which the acquisition cannot be proceeded with and as such there could be no vesting and therefore the possession could not be resumed on account of absence of the brief description of the owner was prevented from raising meaningful objections, as such, provisions of the land could not be taken. Further it is stated that in pursuance of Section 3A (1), notification issued by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent issued a consequential notification under Section 3G of the Act, which was published in Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 13-1-2007, even in the notification under Section 3G of the Act published by the competent authority i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, they have no detailed the extents of land sought to be acquired in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 at Chinnatekur, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District and that the property particulars were not mentioned such as structures, fruit bearing trees, tumbs, cattle shed and other particulars. Therefore, mis-description of the property belongs to the petitioners sought to be acquired as detailed in the notification contravenes the provisions of Section 3G of the Act and thus, violates the notification on the basis of which, the acquisition cannot be proceeded and the possession of the land could not be taken. Further it is stated that the notification issued by the 3rd respondent, under Section 3G vide Rc.No.G1- 826/04, dated 8-1-2006, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 3 are vitiated. Further it is stated that the notification issued by the 3rd respondent, under Section 3G vide Rc.No.G1- 826/04, dated 8-1-2006, failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 3 are vitiated. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent issued a notification vide Rc.No.G1-826/04 and directed the petitioners to appear either in person or through pleader with relevant records to appear before the Joint Collector-cum- Competent authority in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur dated 30-1-2006 at 12.30 p.m., and that they appeared in person before the 3rd respondent and also submitted Xerox copies of pattadar pass books and records of right and also submitted their objections stating that the Sy.No.81, 52, there were existing building, which was let out to Vijaya Bank and fruit bearing trees, structures, cattle sheds, but the same was not depicted in Section 3G Notification issued by the 3rd respondent. The measurements shown in each of survey number are not correct. Further it is stated that particularly Sy.No.52/2 and 54/2 are large in extent acquired than in the notification and also sent objections by way of registered post dated 11-2-2006, but till today, the 3rd respondent had not passed any orders on their objections. Further it is also stated that by invoking Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, they requested the 3rd respondent to furnish the particulars of extents sought to be acquired in Sy.No. 52, 54, 79, 80, 81, 53 and 55 by fix the survey number 55/2 and 54/2 of Chinna Tekuru village, Kalluru Mandal. The structures of three shops, Vijaya Bank building, three tumbes, garden infront of the house, compound wall, fruit bearing trees, etc., are not notified in the impugned notification. The structures of three shops, Vijaya Bank building, three tumbes, garden infront of the house, compound wall, fruit bearing trees, etc., are not notified in the impugned notification. Hence, the office of the 3rd respondent furnished the information with incomplete information without furnishing the extent of land to be acquired and also the Vijaya Bank building and three shops have been acquired, but there was no description of the property as to which part of the land was being acquired unless the part of the land sought to be acquired was properly described, the petitioners are unable to understand the extent of acquisition of land, structures, fruit bearing trees etc., and further incomplete and insufficient information furnished by the Office of the 3rd respondent dated 28-9-2007 is contrary to the notification made by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 3A (1) to 93) and Section 3G notification are not tallying with each other. So, the notification issued by the 1st respondent is contrary to Section 3A (2) and 3G notification issued by the 3rd respondent are not in accordance with law and that therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 7. The endorsement made in Rc.No.B5,1593/07, dt.9-10-2007 reads as hereunder:- "The information which is required by Sri M.Yella Reddy, Ex-Sarpanch, Chinna Tekur village of Kurnool District under Right to Information Act, 2005, the information is herewith enclosed." The particulars furnished dated 28-9-2007 in Rc.No.G1.3177/2007 reads as hereunder:- Rc.G1.3177/2007 Collector's Office, Kurnool Dated: 28-9-2007 Sub:- RTI Act 2005 - Kurnool District report - called for - regarding. Ref:- 1. Rc.B5.3763/2007, dt.18-7-2007. With reference to the petition of Sri M.Yella Reddy, Ex.Sarpanch, Chinnatekur cited in t reference, it is hereby informed that the petitioner may be furnished the particulars of lands, buildings, other structures, fruit bearing trees and the building in which the Vijaya Bank existing and FMB copies of the lands under Right to Information Act 2005 as shown below duly collecting the required fees. Village Sy.No. Structure Tree Valuation Valuation Chinnatekur 55/2 79 - Teak - 13 - Rs.4456/- Regu-1 Neredu-2 Badami-2 Bamboo-12 54/2 - - 53 - - 80 - - 81 Vijaya Bank - Rs.2,13,817/- Daba - Rs.1,74,672/- Wine Shop - Rs. 91,809/- 52/2 Cattle Shed - Rs.35,636/- & foundation Sd/- S.Rama Swamy For Joint Collector, Kurnool 8. Village Sy.No. Structure Tree Valuation Valuation Chinnatekur 55/2 79 - Teak - 13 - Rs.4456/- Regu-1 Neredu-2 Badami-2 Bamboo-12 54/2 - - 53 - - 80 - - 81 Vijaya Bank - Rs.2,13,817/- Daba - Rs.1,74,672/- Wine Shop - Rs. 91,809/- 52/2 Cattle Shed - Rs.35,636/- & foundation Sd/- S.Rama Swamy For Joint Collector, Kurnool 8. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is averred that the 1st respondent issued a Gazette Notification under Section 3A (1) of the Act on 29-8-2005 for the land situated in Sy.No.55/2, 79, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 and 52/2 of Chinnatekur (v), Kallur (m) and that the said notification was also published in Telugu News Paper on 8-9-2005 in Eenadu and 9-9-2005 in Indian Express News paper. It is also stated that the allegation by the writ petitioner that in the sand notification, no particulars of the Lands, Structures, Trees, Tombs and other particulars depicted in accordance with Section 3A of the Act is not correct. Since the Central Government of India, New Delhi, while approving the 3D notification, as furnished by the Competent authority and Joint Collector, N.H.7, Kurnool was got approved, wherein it was clearly mentioned with reference to each Sy.No., coming under aquisition under N.H.7, showing Trees, Structures, Tombs etc. But the Government of India while publishing in the Gazette of India, the said 3D Notification, has clearly mentioned that the land plan and other details of the Land covered under this notification are available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the Office of the Competent authority. Further the Government of India, New Delhi, have published the said (3A Notification with brief description of the land with or without structures falling within the proposed right of way of N.H.7 from K.M.203 to 293 ( Hyderabad - Bangalore Section) in Kurnool District in the State of A.P.). Further it is stated that the writ petitioner without approaching the competent authority and Joint Collector (A), N.H.7, Kurnool and inspecting the Land Plans and other details of Lands covered under this Notification has simply alleged that no such details have been depicted. Hence, the allegations are baseless. Further it is stated that the writ petitioner without approaching the competent authority and Joint Collector (A), N.H.7, Kurnool and inspecting the Land Plans and other details of Lands covered under this Notification has simply alleged that no such details have been depicted. Hence, the allegations are baseless. Further it is stated that in pursuance of this office notification published news papers calling for the objection, if any over the lands under the acquisition, the writ petitioner filed an objection before the competent authority and Joint Collector on 22-9-2005, stating that the land bearing Sy.No.79 to an extent of 0.27 cents of Chinnatekur (v), Kallur (M) was published as Government land and requested to verify the Revenue records and correct the said land as private land by sending this objection petition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool vide this office Rc.G1.1521/2005, dated 28-9-2005, it was requested to take necessary action for submitting the correct 3D in regard to objection of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 3D notification was got approved by the Central Government in Chinnatekur village, duly showing Sy.No.79 as private land, but writ petitioner never filed any objections in regard to his other Survey numbers such as 52/2, 54/2, 80, 81 and 55/2 of Chinnatekur village as contemplated by him in his Writ Petition. As there was no legal objections put forth by the petitioner during 2005, there was no necessity to enquire the petitioner under Section 3(c) of the Act. Hence, the plea of the writ petitioner that the acquisition of his lands cannot be proceeded with and as such there could be no vesting and the possession could not be resumed on account of absence of the brief description, cannot be complied with since the Gazette Notification itself is a self-explanatory one. It is also stated that in pursuance of 3D(1) notification issued by the 1st respondent by way of publication in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005, the 3G Declaration was published in Vaartha news paper on 13-1-2006 by the competent authority, showing the details of land and the extent under acquisition in Sy.No.55/2, 54/2, 53, 80, 81 & 52/2 of Chinnatekur village along with other survey numbers of Kallur Mandal and Kurnool District. The contention of the petitioner that the property particulars were not mentioned such as Structures, Fruit bearing trees, tombs, Cattle sheds etc., does not arise, since 3A notification was published with brief description of the land with or without structures falling within a proposed right of way of N.H.7 from K.M.203 to 293 (Hyderabad - Bangalore Section) in Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further it is stated that it is a fact that the petitioner appeared before the competent authority and Joint Collector (L.A.) N.H.7 in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur on 30-11-2006, and submitted Xerox copies of Pattadar Pass Book and Records of Rights and also submitted his objections stating that Sy.No.81 and 52 are covered by existing building which was let out to Vijaya Bank having fruit bearing trees, structures, cattle sheds. The details of the above survey numbers were mentioned in this office 3D schedule. Further the measurements shown in each survey number are found to be corrected and the said fact were also got corroborated by Deputy Inspector of Survey, Kurnool. Since the petitioner had not given his claims in support of the Register documents for payment of Land compensation so far, the lands belonging to the petitioner was not acquired by passing an Award. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that his objections were not considered is baseless and not maintainable. It is stated that the petitioner had requested the 3rd respondent the particulars of lands, buildings, other structures, fruit bearing trees and the building in which Vijaya Bank existing in Chinnatekur village, under Right to Information Act, 2005 and accordingly, the petitioner was furnished with the required information. The following are the survey number wise with extents under acquisition under N.H.7:- Sy.No. Extent Structure Value Tree Value 55/2 0.01 - - 53/1 0.01 - - 54/2 0.09 - - 80 0.04 - - 81 0.12 Vijaya Bank - Rs.213817/- Daba-Rs.174672/- Wine shop-Rs.91,809/- 52/2 0.13 Cattle Shed and Foundation Rs.35,636/- 79 0.27 Teak - 13 Regu - 1 0.61 Neredu- 2 Badam - 2 Bamboo-12 Rs.4,456/- Further the contention of the petitioner that the information furnished by the Office of the 3rd respondent dt.28-9-2007 is contrary to the Notification made by the respondents 1 & 3 under Section 3A and 3G are not tallying with each other is not correct. It is also stated that the details of survey numbers as per 3D Notification which was got approved by the Government of India and published in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005 are taken as basis for acquisition of lands under N.H.7 and passing of Award and hence, there would not be any contrary or variation under 3A & 3D & 3G notifications issued by the 3rd respondent are in accordance with law. It is also stated that the 3A notification published in Gazette of India, dt.29-8-2005 and its publication in Eenadu Telugu news paper on 8-9-2005 and also the 3D notification approved by the Government of India and publication in Gazette of India dt.13-12-2005 and its publication in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 13-1-2006 under Section 3G of N.H.Act, 1956, are not contrary to Section 3A (1) as pointed out by the petitioner and hence, the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of his lands of Chinnatekur village which are coming under N.H.7 Land Acquisition are baseless and not maintainable, since the 3rd respondent had taken every step to protect the interest of each and every land owner coming under acquisition. It is also stated that in Chinnatekur village, as against the total extent of Ac.26.44 cents, an extent of Ac.16.23 cents of land had already been acquired by passing an Award in Award No.18/2007, dt.27-7-2007, leaving a balance of Ac.10.21 cents inclusive of petitioners lands of Ac.0.61 cents, which is yet to be acquired. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dealing with request for obtaining information reads as hereunder:- "(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to -- (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contracting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,--- (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii)the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable, but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application." 11. This Court in C.Ramachandra Reddy (1st supra) observed at paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 as hereunder:- "The Act, Act 48/1956 is an Act to provide for declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. This Court in C.Ramachandra Reddy (1st supra) observed at paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 as hereunder:- "The Act, Act 48/1956 is an Act to provide for declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the Act deals with Definitions and Section 3(a) defines 'competent authority' as "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires 'competent authority' means any person or authority authorized by the Central Government, necessary notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification". Section 3B of the Act deals with Power to enter for survey, etc. Section 3C of the Act deals with Hearing of objections. Section 3D of the Act deals with Declaration of acquisition. Section 3E of the Act deals with Power to take possession. Section 3F of the Act deals with Right to enter into the land where land has vested in the Central Government. Section 3G of the Act is another important provision which deals with Determination of amount payable as compensation and the said provision reads as hereunder : (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under the Act. (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 take into consideration - (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. Section 3H of the Act deals with Deposit and payment of amount. Section 3J of the Act dealing with Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984 not to apply specifies "Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act". It is needless to say that though Section 3A of the Act may be to some extent akin to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on a careful examination of the language, this provision is not in pari materia or exactly the same as that of the corresponding provision under the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Act simply says "Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land". Sub-section (3) of Section 3A says "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". In State of Haryana and others Vs. Sub-section (3) of Section 3A says "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". In State of Haryana and others Vs. Dewan Singh and others (AIR 1996 S.C., 675) the Apex Court while dealing with the Award made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act held that after the Award is made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or declaration under Section 6 of the said Act after making the Award cannot be challenged since the same is impermissible. Reliance also was placed on Mohanji and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (J.T. 1995(8) S.C. 599) wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the Award made under the Land Acquisition Act observed that in view of the fact that no piecemeal Award by making a subsequent award after the expiry of two years is contemplated in Law, the Award must be construed as the whole Award made under Section 11 awarding compensation for the entire area of Ac.0.99 cents with no compensation awarded for the building and the appellants could claim compensation for the building by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. No doubt, these decisions are under the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant provision of the non-applicability of Land Acquisition Act to the acquisition under The National Highways Act, 1956, i.e., Section 3J of the Act, already had been referred to supra. However, it was contended by the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent that the same principle is applicable even in the case of acquisition under this Act. The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court referred (1) supra wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also the provisions of the Act in question in the present case observed at para-15 : "Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification regarding acquisition of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of notification so that the land owners are adequately compensated. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of notification so that the land owners are adequately compensated. Reference may be made to: (a) Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Rajkumar Johri and others (1992) 1 SCC 328 , (b) Gauri Shankar Gaur and others v. State of U.P. and others ( 1994(1) SCC 92 , (c) Haji Saeed Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others ( 2001(9) SCC 513 ). In that direction the next step is what should be the crucial date in the facts of the present case for determining the quantum of compensation. We feel that the relevant date in the present case, ought to be the date when possession of the land was taken by the respondents from the writ petitioners. This date admittedly is 19th February, 2003. We, therefore, direct that compensation payable to the writ petitioners be determined as on 19th February, 2003, the date on which they were deprived of possession of their lands. We do not quash the impugned notification in order not to disturb what has already taken place by way of use of the acquired land for construction of the national highway. We direct that the compensation for the acquired land be determined as on 19th February, 2003 expeditiously and within ten weeks from today and the amount of compensation so determined be paid to the writ petitioners after adjusting the amount already paid by way of compensation within eight weeks thereafter. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the Appropriate Authority. We express no opinion about other statutory rights, if any, available to the parties in this behalf and the parties will be free to exercise the same, if available. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the Appropriate Authority. We express no opinion about other statutory rights, if any, available to the parties in this behalf and the parties will be free to exercise the same, if available. The compensation as determined by us under this order along with other benefits, which the respondents give to parties whose lands are acquired under the Act should be given to the writ petitioners along with what has been directed by us in this judgment." In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, the provisions of the Act referred to supra and also the language employed in Section 3A of the Act and on a careful scrutiny of the notifications issued, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notifications as such do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the said notifications are not liable to be quashed. However, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred (1) supra, which had been decided in the context of the Act and the notification under Section 3A of the Act, though the impugned notifications are left untouched, it is made clear that the relevant date to determine the compensation to be taken as the date when possession of the land had been taken by the respondents from the writ petitioners and the claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined to be decided in accordance with Law by the appropriate authority. " 12. No doubt, strong reliance was placed by the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in COMPETENT AUTHORITY v. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND OTHERS, (2005) 13 SCC 477 , In the said decision at paras 11 to 15, the Apex Court observed as hereunder:- "Coming to the point regarding filing of claim for compensation on behalf of the company by its General Manager with complete details of the land under acquisition, we must note that at the relevant time in 1998 and thereafter till 2001, the writ petitioner company had no existence. On account of demands of workers of the factory and to meet other statutory demands, a committee was appointed by the High Court in the winding up proceedings pending before it to run the factory. The claim for compensation was filed by somebody as the general Manager of the company. He had no authority to do so. The committee had to manage only the factory and had nothing to do with ownership issues. So far as details of land under acquisition contained in the claim is concerned, it is based on material contained in the impugned Notification and the Appendix. Filing of such a claim by somebody who had no authority to do so, cannot deprive the owners of their right to challenge the acquisition of the lands owned by the company. Therefore, neither delay in filing the writ petition nor filing of claim for compensation can stand in the way of the writ petitioners in seeking relief in these proceedings. About the argument based on vesting of the land in the Central Government, it is to be seen that if the initial Notification is bad, all steps taken in pursuance thereof will fall with it. Vesting under Section 3d (2)arises on a declaration by the Central Government under Section-3d (1). The declaration is the result of disposal of objections under Section 3c. Each step is a consequence of earlier step and in that sense all the steps are linked to initial Notification for acquisition under Section 3a (1) and (2). This initial Notification has been held to be not in accordance with law. When the foundation goes rest of the edifice falls. The invalid notification under Section 3 (A) renders all subsequent steps invalid. Therefore, vesting of land in the Central Government in the present case cannot be said to be lawful and it does not advance the case of the Competent Authority or the NHAI. Taking possession of the land is yet another step in the same sequence and is again-subject to the initial Notification being held valid. The initial Notification having been invalidated, there can be no legal or valid vesting of land in the favour of the central Government. The aspect of possession of land having been taken by the Competent Authority, is an important issue for consideration in this case. The initial Notification having been invalidated, there can be no legal or valid vesting of land in the favour of the central Government. The aspect of possession of land having been taken by the Competent Authority, is an important issue for consideration in this case. Vesting of land in the Central government has been held to be not in accordance with the law. The other statutory requirement which needs to be complied before taking possession is deposit of compensation. Under Section 3e (1)possession can be taken only after the land vests in the Central Government and the amount determined by the Competent Authority as compensation under Section 3g has been deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3h. In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April, 2002 passed by the High court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. Therefore, there could not be a valid deposit of amount finally determined as required under Section 3e (1) of the Act, which means the possession could not have been taken. But the fact is that possession was taken on 19th February, 2003 on deposit of provisional amount of compensation. The NHAI had in fact applied for permission of court to take possession of the land under acquisition. But without any order being passed on that application, it hastened to take possession after giving only one day's notice when the Act requires 60 days notice. Moreover, the possession is to be taken through the Commissioner of police or the Collector. This was not done. Neither of the three statutory requirements for taking possession were fulfilled. Thus taking of possession of the lands in the present case is in total violation of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the acquiring Authority submits that possession was taken on basis of oral observations of the court. This is a totally misconceived plea. Court orders are always in black and white. Oral orders are never passed. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March, 2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for the NHAI. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March, 2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for the NHAI. At this stage we would like to note that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners made reference to a publication in the nature of a brochure issued by the west Bengal Government wherein it is mentioned that motels/shops/petrol pumps etc. will also come up in the area where the acquired land is situate. On this basis it was sought to be argued that such use of the acquired land would be contrary to the use mentioned in Section 3a of the Act and, therefore, is not permissible. There was lot of controversy on this aspect between the parties particularly, on the ground that this plea was being taken at this belated stage when the respondents had no opportunity to give a proper reply thereto. We have mentioned this only for the reason that the issue has come up during the course of hearing. We do not consider it necessary to go into this aspect, in view of the fact that we have held in this judgment that the basic acquisition notification itself is not in accordance with law. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance, i.e., the construction of a national highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring Authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned Notification being quashed. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring Authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned Notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. Quashing of the Notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the per titioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned Notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action." Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in PADMAVATHI v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 2007- Tlmad-0-362, 2007 (TLS) 1216172. In RIDH KAARAN REKECHA v. UNION OF INDIA, 2004-Calhn-4-327, 2004 (TLS) 508278, at paras 6, 12 and 20, the Calcutta High Court observed as hereunder:- "The main contentions on which the respective counsel had based their submissions either in favour or against such point may be summarized thus: (1) The mis-description of the property sought to be acquired as detailed in the notification contravenes the provisions of Section 3a (2) of the National Highway Act and thus vitiates the Notification on the basis of which the acquisition cannot be proceeded with and as such there could be no vesting and, therefore, the possession could not be resumed since on account of absence of brief description the owner was prevented from raising a meaningful objection: (2) the possession of the land could not be taken in view of the provisions contained in sections 3e, G and Hence, particularly, on the face of the order dated 3rd of April, 2002 passed by the Division Bench in MAT No.351 of 2002, particularly, without complying with section 3e (2). 6.1. On these two broad points, the parties went on. In support, both the learned Counsel had raised some ancillary points, which are sub-division of these two broad points. 6.1. On these two broad points, the parties went on. In support, both the learned Counsel had raised some ancillary points, which are sub-division of these two broad points. Point No.1: the petitioner's contention: Admittedly, the scope of objection available under section 3c is limited. National Highway Act has given a restricted right of objection. Under section 3c (1) the scope of objection is confined only to the use of the land for the purpose for which the land is acquired. Section 3d (1) requires the Competent Authority to consider this objection and decide the same and come to the conclusion as to whether the land is required for the purpose or not. Such decision, in our view, is final, inasmuch as it is dependent simply on the Site Plan prepared by the NHAI showing the requirement of the area of the land for different purpose for which the lands are being acquired. Therefore, the scope of objection being limited, the brief description of the land is thought of necessity by the legislature so as to enable the owner to raise a meaningful objection. This purpose can be satisfied either by annexing part of the relevant Plan, showing the existence of the respective plots of lands as shown in the respective Land Revenue Records, particularly, the Survey Maps currently available or by indicating that the part or whole of the land id within the Plan for construction of the national highway available at the office of the NHAI or the Competent Authority for inspection and the owner is entitled to inspect the same on the days and time mentioned in the notice or Notification on requisition or request or on appointed date and time, as the case may be. Whether the land is required in whole or in part can be ascertained only when the Map or plan is made available for inspection by the owner. In fact, it is not possible for the owner to raise a meaningful objection as to which part of the land is required for the purpose of construction of the National highway or the whole of it, unless the owner is able to consult the Plan. 12.1 Other Acts dealing with acquisition of land, particularly, Act No.1 of 1894, do not require giving of brief description of the land. Even then the Apex court had read it in those Acts. 12.1 Other Acts dealing with acquisition of land, particularly, Act No.1 of 1894, do not require giving of brief description of the land. Even then the Apex court had read it in those Acts. The purpose was held to be served if there was an indication in the notice that the Map or Plan was available for inspection in the office of the Collector. NH Act stands on a different footing from all other legislations dealing with acquisition of land to the extent of the requirement of giving description of the land, which may be brief. The Act itself seems to be a departure in this regard from all other Acts already operating in the field, wherein the requirement of giving brief description of the land is absent, but is being read by the Courts in order to enable the owner to raise meaningful objection. A statute when uses a particular expression, the same cannot be held to be otiose or redundant. Every word in the statute has to be given its due meaning. The golden rule of interpretation is to give simple grammatical meaning of the expression used in the statute. 12.2. When the legislature make a departure in the normal expression used in a statute as ordinarily used in statute similarly situated and operating in the same or similar fields, it is to be presumed that the legislature had made the departure consciously and it has imposed greater precaution and an additional burden to protect the interest of those whose lands are acquired, conferring additional liability on the acquiring authority. 12.3 if we go on reading this particular statute, it appears to us that the requirement of giving brief description is a necessity. It cannot be overlooked. Whether the land is necessary for the purpose as a whole or in part has to be related to or reconciled with the Plan prepared, showing the details of the plots as to whether as a whole or in part or to what extent the same is falling within the line drawn in the Plan or is outside the Plan and the utility for which it would be used for the purpose of construction of the National Highway can be ascertained. In our view, the project being extensively large, it is just not possible to furnish copies of Plan to each of the owner. In our view, the project being extensively large, it is just not possible to furnish copies of Plan to each of the owner. At the same time, it is just not possible to proceed to determine the necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of land without preparation of a proper plan indicating the necessity and purpose for which such land is to be utilized. When such a Plan is drawn and prepared and the land required for such purpose is proposed to be acquired, it is incumbent on the acquiring authority to indicate in the Notification itself that the Plan or map is available in the office of the NHAI or the Competent Authority or with such other officer as may be indicated and are available for inspection on the appointed date and time mentioned in the notice or it may prepare a schedule for inspection for people of different areas on different dates or by appointment, as the case may be, which is, in our view, would satisfy the requirement of brief description which is a special and particular mandatory requirement provided in the Act itself. Absence of objection: Impact: We, therefore, direct that the compensation already determined be enhanced by 30% on account of the illegality in the Notification and the deprivation of possession. The Notification issued shall be deemed to be valid from the date of its issue with all its intent, purpose and object. We, however, keep the claim for interest open to be decided, in accordance with law, by the appropriate authority, if claimed and if occasion so arises. However, such determination and deposit shall be subject to section 3g (5) for reference to arbitrator if occasion so arises and the parties so choose to exercise such option. This order is without prejudice to the rights of the respondents and free from all liabilities so far as the claim that might be lodged either by the official Liquidator or the Provident Fund Authority. We make no observation with regard to the liability of the petitioners or the entitlement of the Official liquidator or the Provident Fund Authority to recover its dues or otherwise, nor we express any opinion with regard to any orders passed by any authority or Court in any other proceeding or proceedings, as the case may be. We make no observation with regard to the liability of the petitioners or the entitlement of the Official liquidator or the Provident Fund Authority to recover its dues or otherwise, nor we express any opinion with regard to any orders passed by any authority or Court in any other proceeding or proceedings, as the case may be. We make it clear further that this order will not affect or open up any of the claims or otherwise of any of the party. This order is exclusively confined to the appellant/petitioner in this case. "There will, however, be no order as to costs. All interim orders stand discharged and the respondents or the Competent Authority or the NHAI shall be free to proceed with the construction and commission of the National highway. The additional amount is to be deposited with the Competent Authority in terms of this order within a period of one month from the date of this order. The writ petitioners shall be entitled to release of the amount in deposit and of the additional amount upon deposit, in accordance with law unless otherwise prohibited. This appeal and this writ petition are thus disposed of." 13. The relevant provisions of the Act - Section 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F had been relied upon. Further specific reference was made to Section 3G(5) of the Act. It specifies that if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. 14. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, inasmuch as, this Court also had expressed the view in C.Ramachandra Reddy's case (referred 1st supra) this Court is not inclined to accept with the contention of the writ petitioners that the notification is liable to be quashed. However, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ridh Kaaran Rekecha (referred 4th supra) and also the decision of the Apex Court in Competent Authority's case (referred 2nd supra) had been heavily relied upon. It is not as though when there is dispute relating to the quantum of compensation, the petitioners are remediless. However, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ridh Kaaran Rekecha (referred 4th supra) and also the decision of the Apex Court in Competent Authority's case (referred 2nd supra) had been heavily relied upon. It is not as though when there is dispute relating to the quantum of compensation, the petitioners are remediless. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the discrepancies in between the particulars furnished in the notification and also the particulars furnished when request was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 had been highlighted and argued in elaboration. No doubt, the standing Counsel representing respondents would explain it away on the ground such information furnished being more or less explanatory, it would not cause any prejudice to the writ petitioners. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect. But, however, since it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents that inasmuch as no Award had been made as on today and all the other objections also would be considered, this Court is of the considered opinion that no serious prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioners in the light of the fact that the competent authority also would consider all the other objections inclusive of the particulars which are said to have been furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also the other objections, if any, which had been already raised by the writ petitioners. 15. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.