Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 977 (AP)

National Highway Authority of India v. Girija

2025-08-14

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, SUMATHI JAGADAM

body2025
JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. Heard Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI appearing for Appellants/respondents 2 to 4 and Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The parties herein are being referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner herein had purchased Ac.1.00 cents of land in Sy.No.169/3 of Devadoddi Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District, by way of a registered deed of sale, registered as Document No.711/2003. She had sold certain parts of the land and sought conversion of the land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes, by way of an application, dated 15.02.2015. As no orders were being passed, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.17529 of 2016. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of, on 01.09.2019, by a learned Single Judge, holding that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of the proviso to sub section 6 of Section 3 of A.P Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, on account of the fact that the requisite fee, for such conversion had already been paid and consequently the deeming provision available under the said proviso would applicable and the land of the petitioner would be deemed to have been converted as non-agricultural land. This judgment was placed before the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, who issued an endorsement, dated 09.10.2017, that the said land, admeasuring Ac1.00 cents in Sy.No.169/3, is deemed to have been converted from agricultural land to non-agricultural land. A further direction was given to the Tahsildar to implement the orders of the High Court and send a compliance report. Thereafter, another endorsement, dated 05.03.2018, was issued by the Sub-Collector, rejecting the application of the petitioner for conversion, on the ground that the said conversion had already occurred on account of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and nothing further remains. 4. Even while this process was going on, steps had been initiated to acquire about Ac.0.80 cents of the land of the petitioner for the purposes of development of the Banglore-Chennai Expressway. 4. Even while this process was going on, steps had been initiated to acquire about Ac.0.80 cents of the land of the petitioner for the purposes of development of the Banglore-Chennai Expressway. The petitioner, is said to have represented to the competent authority that acquiring only Ac.0.80 cents of land out of Ac.1.00 cents belonging to the petitioner was arbitrary and unfair inasmuch as the remaining Ac.0.20 cents was effectively useless and could not be used for any purpose. Further, the petitioner is also said to have represented that the compensation, towards the loss of land, under the acquisition process, should be calculated on a yard wise basis and not on acre wise basis as the land of the petitioner had been converted to non-agricultural land and the area was being used for house sites. The petitioner is also said to have contended that the petitioner herself made a lay out and had sold part of the land as plots. 5. The process of ascertaining the compensation, payable to the petitioner and the other affected persons, is said to have taken about two years time and culminated in an Award, dated 17.01.2018, passed by the competent authority in Award No.40/NHAI-Baireddipalle (M)/Devadoddi (V) in ROC.No.NHAI/G1/1088/2012. Under this Award, the compensation, payable to the petitioner, was ascertained on an acre wise and not on yard wise basis. The petitioner, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.2566 of 2022, contending that the fixation of compensation to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents, on an acre wise basis was illegal and arbitrary and to declare that the petitioner would be entitled to compensation on a square yard basis as per the prevailing market value with interest @ 24% as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner moved I.A.No.1 of 2024 for amending her prayer in the Writ Petition to include a challenge to the aforesaid Award, dated 17.01.2018, and for setting aside the same. This amendment was allowed on 11.12.2014. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was also allowed, setting aside the Award, dated 17.01.2018, in relation to the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.750 cents, equivalent to 3034 Sq.Mts and directing re-fixation of the compensation payable, by giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by this order, dated 18.12.2024, the respondents 2, 3 and 4, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present appeal. 6. Aggrieved by this order, dated 18.12.2024, the respondents 2, 3 and 4, in the Writ Petition, have filed the present appeal. The appellants, are being referred to as respondents 2 to 4 in the present order. 7. The contention of the respondents 2 to 4 is that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of approaching the arbitrator under Section 3 (G)(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 and that the present Writ Petition, filed, despite availability of such an alternative remedy, is not maintainable and requires to be dismissed. 8. Before going into the merits of the appeal, it would be necessary to consider this issue first. In the normal course, the contention of the respondents 2 to 4 would require acceptance. However, in the present case, the Writ Petition came to be filed in the year 2022 and an amendment to the writ prayer raising a challenge to the Award was accepted by this Court. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy, at this length of time. The aforesaid objection of the respondents 2 to 4 is hereby rejected. 9. The contention of the petitioner, which found favour with the learned Single Judge, is that there was an arbitrary classification of land into four categories and fixation of different market values, in relation to neighbouring pieces of land, merely on such an arbitrary classification. The petitioner also contended that the competent authority had fixed the market value for the land of the petitioner on an acre wise basis despite the fact that the land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes and that a part of the land was being used as house plots. 10. The learned Single Judge, agreed with the contention of the petitioner that the classification of land, was not proper and in any event, the large variation, in the determination of the market value of the land in one location was arbitrary. The learned Single Judge also took into account the fact that an extent of 200 yards of land sold by the petitioner to Smt. Kanthamma in the year 2011 was valued at a far higher value as opposed to the remaining land of the petitioner and such a variation is clearly impermissible. 11. The learned Single Judge also took into account the fact that an extent of 200 yards of land sold by the petitioner to Smt. Kanthamma in the year 2011 was valued at a far higher value as opposed to the remaining land of the petitioner and such a variation is clearly impermissible. 11. Sri Padmarao Lakkaraju, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would contend that the learned Single Judge apart from declining to go into the question of maintainability had also committed a serious error in holding that the variation in market value was arbitrary. He would contend that the acquisition of land was done on the basis of usage and the nature of ownership of over the said land. He would submit that classification on the basis of such differentia is clearly permissible and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would also contend that reopening of the Award at this late stage and conducting a fresh reassessment of the market value would affect the progress of the construction of the National Highway and the same should not be permitted. 13. The petitioner admits that she has lost possession over the land which had been notified in the acquisition process. In such circumstances, execution of the project would not get affected and this contention of the respondents 2 to 4 is rejected. 14. The question of whether classification of land into four categories, depending on purpose of use of land and nature of ownership over the land, is arbitrary or not need not detain us. The singular fact that a part of the land of the petitioner sold to Smt. Kanthamma, was valued at a far higher market value than that of the petitioner, is sufficient, to show that the valuation process was arbitrary. 15. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and this Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.