REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2008

M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt.  Ltd. & Ors.               .. Appellants

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  .. Respondents

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.74 OF 2008 AND 215 OF 2008

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.   

1. Civil  Appeal  No.52  of  2008  arising  out  of  

SLP(C)No.19592  of  2007  filed  by  M/s.  Jayabheri  

Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others, was taken up for  

1

hearing and final disposal along with Civil Appeal  

Nos.74 and 215 of 2008 arising out of SLP(C)No.  

19633/07  and  SLP(C)D.No.29751/07  respectively.  

Since all the three appeals arise out of the same  

set  of  facts  and  give  rise  to  the  same  set  of  

issues,  they  have  been  taken  up  together  for  

hearing and final disposal.   

2. Two  writ  petitions  being  Writ  Petition  

Nos.22809  and  22810  of  2006,  were  filed  by  the  

appellants herein, whereas Writ Petition No.26996  

of 2006 was filed by T. Chittaiah and three others  

against  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and,  in  

particular, against the Hyderabad Urban Development  

Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HUDA’).  

The three writ petitions relate to the challenge  

thrown  to  the  acquisition  of  land  comprised  in  

Survey Nos.176, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200,  

201 and 202 of Narsingi Village and Survey Nos.292,  

293 and 294 of Poppalguda Village of Rajendranagar  

2

Mandal,  Ranga  Reddy  District  for  the  Outer  Ring  

Road (ORR) Project for the twin cities of Hyderabad  

and Secunderabad.   

3. The  said  project  was  for  the  purpose  of  

providing an Inner and Intermediate Ring Road and  

an Outer Ring Road as part of the main circulation  

system  for  traffic.  In  1984,  HUDA  undertook  a  

detailed  study  for  the  development  of  the  

Intermediate Ring Road, but there was little or no  

progress in view of the growth of the city and  

advent of the Information Technology industry and  

various other educational and industrial projects.  

In 2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated  

a  project  known  as  the  “ORR  Project”  and  HUDA  

engaged M/s. MECON for feasibility study.  

4. The report submitted by M/s. MECON contemplated  

the laying of a 109 km. 4-lane connectivity around  

the  city.   In  July,  2004,  the  project  was  re-

examined and on the recommendations made by senior  

3

officers of the Government and HUDA, the project  

was revised so that ORR could pass through open  

areas avoiding major settlements and habitations.  

The revised project was notified vide G.O.Ms.No.442  

dated 19th October, 2004.  The ORR alignment was  

finalised in April, 2005, providing for a 159 km.  

road  around  the  twin  cities  and  Ranga  Reddy  

District.   

5. The  final  alignment  comprised  of  Western,  

Northern,  Eastern  and  Southern  sectors.  

Thereafter, notifications dated 13th April, 2005 and  

21st April, 2005, were issued under Section 4(1) of  

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of  

various  lands  in  different  sectors.   Since  the  

alignment  of  the  Western  Sector  was  through  

Poppalguda  and  other  villages  which  comprised  

hillocks,  tanks  and  lakes,  representations  were  

made for change of the said alignment which led to  

the  inspection  of  the  same  by  officers  of  the  

4

technical wing of the ORR Project.  It was found  

that  the  alignment  involving  huge  rock-cutting,  

would be highly uneconomical. The proposed Trumpet  

Interchange  at  the  T-Junction  point  which  was  

incorporated at Poppalguda Junction, was found to  

be  affecting  a  water  body  and  school  building.  

Accordingly,  an  alternative  alignment  was  

considered  by  a  Committee  comprising  senior  

officials  of  the  Government  and  HUDA  which  

inspected  the  alternative  alignments  and  made  

certain observations.  Among the observations which  

affected the parties to the present proceedings,  

was observation (e), which, on the basis of a quick  

survey, inter alia, provided as follows :  

(i) The alignment should not affect any  

water  body,  as  it  was  

environmentally sensitive zone.

5

(ii) The alignment should involve minimal  

rock  cutting  and  filling,  as  the  

terrain was uneven.

(iii) The alignment should involve minimal  

bends and curves keeping the design  

standards of the Outer Ring Road in  

mind.  

6. On the basis of the aforesaid suggestions, the  

matter  was  assigned  to  NSS  Associates,  which  

submitted its report on 15th November, 2005, with  

the  recommendation  that  the  notified  Western  

Alignment joining Phase I at Poppalguda Village was  

not  advisable  and  an  alignment  passing  through  

Narsingi village should be worked out to lessen the  

expenses for cutting through rock forming part of  

the  proposed  alignment.   After  considering  the  

report submitted by NSS Associates, the Alignment  

Committee, once again studied the entire matter and  

recommended  that  the  alignment  suggested  by  NSS  

6

Associates be accepted.  One of the observations  

made by the Alignment Committee with regard to the  

Western  Sector  alignment,  as  suggested  by  NSS  

Associates, is that the new alignment avoids all  

water  bodies  in  the  area,  which  was  an  

environmentally  sensitive  area  with  a  need  to  

protect all water bodies.  Upon approval of the  

State  Government  of  the  Report  of  the  Alignment  

Committee,  a  G.O.M.  No.8  dated  12.12.2005  was  

issued,  whereby  the  Project  Director  and  the  

Special  Collector,  Land  Acquisition,  Outer  Ring  

Road Project, were permitted to notify the final  

alignment of the ORR.   

7. Subsequent thereto, on 13th December, 2005, a  

notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the  

Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring  

the land belonging to the appellants situated at  

Narsingi Village.  Another notice of even date was  

also issued seeking to acquire the lands belonging  

7

to the appellants situated at Poppalguda Village.  

On 12th January, 2006, objections were filed by the  

appellants  under  Section  5-A  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, inter alia, contending as follows:

(a) there is a water body in the impugned  

alignment  in  Survey  No.291  of  

Poppalguda Village.   

(b) the  change  of  alignment  is  illegal,  

since  the  earlier  alignment  was  

straight  in  shape  and  the  impugned  

alignment is taking several twists and  

turns.

(c) earlier  alignment  was  finalized  upon  

scientific  survey  and  consequently  

notifications  were  earlier  issued  on  

21-4-2005,  which  was  a  straight  

alignment.

(d) impugned  alignment  was  finalized  

without  any  proper  survey  and  

verification.

8

Reference  was  also  made  to  a  Land  Use  

Certificate issued by HUDA on 16th January, 2006,  

indicating  that  as  per  the  approved  Zonal  

Development Plan, there was a notified water body  

in the land comprising Survey No.291 of Poppalguda.  

The objections filed under Section 5-A were fixed  

for  consideration  on  17th July,  2006,  before  the  

Special Deputy Collector and on 21st July, 2006, the  

same were rejected and on 29th July, 2006, a Draft  

Declaration was published under Section 6 of the  

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

8. In  the  meantime,  on  the  complaints  made  on  

behalf  of  the  appellants,  a  CBI  inquiry  was  

directed by the Central Government in respect of 5  

projects  undertaken  by  the  Government,  including  

the ORR Project and the HUDA Township at Kokapet.  

9. After  considering  the  objections  filed  on  

behalf  of  some  of  the  land  owners,  a  draft  

9

declaration  dated  29.7.2006  was  issued  under  

Section 6 of the aforesaid Act and the same was  

published  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Gazette  Extra-

ordinary of the same date.   By virtue of the said  

draft  declaration  under  Section  6  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh  

declared that the land specified in the schedule to  

the draft declaration situated at Narsingi village  

of  Rajendranagar  Mandal,  Ranga  Reddy  District,  

measuring 23 acres and 23 guntas was needed for a  

public purpose, namely, for formation of the Outer  

Ring  Road.   The  same  was  challenged  by  the  

Appellants herein by way of a Writ Petition on 24th  

October,  2006,  on  several  grounds.  One  of  the  

grounds taken was that the earlier notifications  

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act  

had  been  issued  keeping  in  view  the  scientific  

alignment of the road and suitability of the land  

proposed to be acquired and more importantly that  

the proposed acquisition did not cover the land of  

10

Narsingi  village.   Perhaps,  the  most  important  

ground was that the land covered by Survey No.291  

was shown to be a water body and Survey No.292 was  

a green belt touching a water body.   

10. It was also urged on behalf of the Appellants  

that the alignment of the road had been altered  

with  mala  fide  intent  to  benefit  certain  people  

belonging to the ruling party in power. It was also  

claimed that the revised alignment would convert  

the straight road into a serpentine road with the  

sole object of ensuring that the Outer Ring Road  

passed in a manner which boosted the value of the  

land  held  by  ruling  party  leaders,  their  well-

wishers and kith and kin.   

11. Appearing  for  the  appellants,  Mr.  Bhaskar  

Gupta,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  submitted  that  

although one of the reasons given for alteration of  

the alignment was that water bodies on the said  

alignment  would  be  disturbed,  in  fact,  the  

11

alternative alignment would affect a larger number  

of existing water bodies and destroy particularly  

Survey Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300.  It was urged  

that the objections filed by the appellants under  

Section  5-A  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894,  

which gives a very valuable right to the appellants  

and had been given almost the same status as a  

fundamental  right  by  this  Court,  had  been  dealt  

with  perfunctorily  revealing  non-application  of  

mind as the above-mentioned survey numbers had, in  

fact,  been  identified  by  the  local  authorities,  

including  HUDA,  to  be  water  bodies.   Mr.  Gupta  

pointed out from the Land Use Information given by  

HUDA on 16th January, 2006, that Survey No.291 was a  

water body, Survey No.292 was used for wet and dry  

agriculture  and  was  touching  a  water  body  and  

Survey Nos.293 and 294 were also used for wet and  

dry agriculture.

12

12. He contended that apart from the above, even in  

GOM  No.647  dated  3rd October,  2001,  prescribing  

registration of water bodies, Survey No.291 under  

the  entries  relating  to  Poppalguda  Village  was  

shown to be “Kunta”, meaning a tank.  

13. Mr. Gupta submitted that in a letter dated 23rd  

December, 2006, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation  

Department,  informed  the  appellants  herein  

regarding the existence of water bodies in Survey  

Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 of Poppalguda Village.  

Mr. Gupta submitted that the concerned Executive  

Engineer was suspended from service for giving a  

true picture of the terrain to the appellants. It  

was submitted that the report of the Central Water  

Commission dated 27th November, 2007, which had been  

submitted to this Court after inspection of Survey  

Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 on 24th November, 2007,  

did not give a correct picture of the plots in  

question, since the inspection was conducted during  

13

the month of November which is a dry season in the  

area when most of the tanks and water bodies tend  

to dry up.  Mr. Gupta submitted that although a  

great  deal  of  reliance  has  been  placed  by  the  

respondents  on  a  letter  written  by  another  

Executive Engineer also dated 23rd December, 2006,  

saying that there were no water bodies at all, such  

a statement had to be incorrect in view of the  

report of the Central Water Commission which also  

indicated that there were water bodies, of which  

some were dry.  Mr. Gupta submitted that, in any  

event, water bodies were required to be preserved  

and could not be converted to other use, even if it  

was for the public good.

14. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.  

Gupta referred to and relied upon the decision of  

this Court in  Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs.  

State of A.P. & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 549], wherein  

the need for balancing water and land resources for  

14

urban developmental needs was considered and it was  

observed that the responsibility of the State to  

protect  the  environment  is  now  a  well  accepted  

notion in all countries.  Reference was also made  

to a decision of this Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs.  

Kamala Devi & Ors. [(2001) 6 SCC 496] and on a  

decision of the Calcutta High Court in  PUBLIC vs.  

State of West Bengal [AIR 1993 Cal. 215], wherein  

similar views have been expressed.  Various other  

decisions  were  also  cited  in  this  regard,  which  

will only have a multiplying effect to the views  

already expressed in the earlier judgments.   

15. On the question of the importance of  Section  

5-A,  Mr.  Gupta  referred  to  several  decisions  of  

this Court, such as : (i) Munshi Singh & Ors. vs.  

Union of India [(1973) 2 SCC 337]; (ii)  Union of  

India & Ors. vs.  Mukesh Hans [(2004) 8 SCC 14];  

(iii)  Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs.  Darius  

Shapur Chenai & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 627]; and (iv)  

15

Ram  Krishan  Mahajan vs.  Union  Territory  of  

Chandigarh & Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 634], wherein the  

importance  of  Section  5-A  and  the  very  valuable  

right given to an individual, whose land is being  

sought to be taken away, to raise an objection, has  

been emphatically demonstrated.   

16. Mr. Gupta submitted that since a very valuable  

right to object to the acquisition of land has been  

given to a person whose land was being sought to be  

taken  away,  it  was  the  statutory  duty  of  the  

Collector to consider the suitability of the land,  

hear  objections,  if  any,  filed  by  any  of  the  

persons  affected,  and,  thereafter,  to  make  his  

recommendations  on  the  objections  so  raised  and  

forward  the  same  to  the  Government  for  further  

action.   Instead,  the  Collector  appeared  to  be  

helpless since a decision had already been taken by  

the Government even before the publication of the  

Section 4 notification. The report of the Collector  

16

dated 23rd December, 1996, was nothing but an empty  

formality.   

17. Mr. Gupta also urged that the High Court, while  

considering the two contradictory letters dated 23rd  

December, 2006, written by two Executive Engineers,  

erroneously chose to reject the letter which had  

been relied upon by the Appellants merely on the  

ground that according to the Gazette Notification  

Survey No.291 falls in Narsingi Village, although,  

the letters say that the same falls in Poppalguda  

Village.   Mr.  Gupta  submitted  that  the  error  

committed by the High Court would be evident from  

the  project  description  submitted  by  M/s  NSS  

Associates along with its communication dated 15th  

November, 2005.  

18. Mr. Gupta urged that the entire approach of the  

High Court was erroneous and failed to take into  

consideration the facts relating to the topography  

17

of the land involving the changed alignment of the  

ring road.   

19. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Senior Advocate, who appeared  

for the Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.74 of 2008  

and 215 of 2008, reiterated Mr. Gupta’s submissions  

relating to denial of a proper opportunity to the  

Appellants (land owners) under Section 5-A of the  

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  Mr. Ahmed submitted  

that while the public purpose of the project could  

not be denied, what we are called upon to consider  

is regarding the viability of the land included in  

the second alignment since it passed through and  

affected some of the water bodies in the area.  Mr.  

Ahmed  referred  to  the  report  submitted  by  the  

Committee  comprised  of  the  Principal  Secretary,  

Infrastructure  and  Investment  Department  (IIT),  

Managing  Director,  INCAP  and  Vice-Chairman,  

Hyderabad  Urban  Development  Authority  (HUDA)  and  

other  officers  of  HUDA,  the  Chief  Engineer  and  

18

Special Collector, ORR, wherein in paragraph (e)  

the  Committee  was  of  the  view  that  the  data  

available  was  insufficient  and  a  quick  survey  

should be made, inter alia, to ascertain that the  

alignment did not affect any water body since the  

area was an environmentally sensitive zone.

20. Reference was also made to the final decision  

of  the  Committee  which  was  based  on  the  

recommendations of the Pollution Control Board in  

which it was stated that the alignment avoids all  

water  bodies  in  the  area,  which  statement  was  

incorrect.  Having  regard  to  the  admission  

subsequently  made  by  HUDA  in  the  Land  Use  

Certificate  issued  on  16.1.2006  indicating  that  

plot  No.300,  which  falls  squarely  on  the  new  

alignment,  was  a  water  body  together  with  plot  

No.291.   

21. Mr.  Ahmed  urged  that  based  on  an  incorrect  

appreciation  of  the  topography  relating  to  the  

19

second alignment, a decision had been taken to act  

on the basis of the new alignment, which, in fact,  

could not have been proceeded with for the same  

reason  as  was  given  for  abandoning  the  first  

alignment.  Mr.  Ahmed  repeated  Mr.  Gupta’s  

submission regarding the two certificates dated 12th  

August, 2009, which showed the existence of water  

bodies in plot Nos.298, 299 and 300.  He contended  

that the creation of the second alignment was made  

only  to  suit  certain  individuals  who  had  an  

interest in the lands which fell within the first  

alignment.   

22. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the decision taken to  

approve the second alignment was motivated and was  

contrary to the stand taken while disapproving the  

first alignment.

23. Appearing for the Hyderabad Urban Development  

Authority  (HUDA),  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  Senior  

Advocate, referred to the report of the Alignment  

20

Committee, on which strong reliance was placed by  

him.   Mr.  Venugopal  submitted  that  only  after  

examining  the  reports  submitted  by  M/s  NSS  

Associates  and  M/s.  Aarvee  Associates  that  the  

Alignment  Committee  set  up  by  the  Government  

recommended change in the alignment of the Outer  

Ring Road in the Poppalguda and Narsingi villages  

in the Western Sector.   Mr. Venugopal submitted  

that proper care had been taken to avoid all major  

structures, water bodies and habitations.  Learned  

counsel submitted that the change from the first  

alignment to the second alignment was necessitated  

by the fact that a large portion of the alignment  

was comprised of hilly terrain which would involve  

a considerable amount of rock cutting and that in  

order to avoid the said hillocks at Poppalguda the  

second  alignment  was  proposed  through  Narsingi  

village.

21

24. Mr. Venugopal submitted that a major portion of  

the  construction  work  in  respect  of  the  Western  

Sector of the Outer Ring Road had been completed  

and  only  the  portion  comprising  about  a  two-  

kilometer stretch, which is the subject matter of  

the present appeals, was yet to be completed.

25. In this connection, Mr. Venugopal also referred  

to the report of the visit of the Expert Central  

Team of the Central Water Commission for an on the  

spot  study  and  to  verify  as  to  whether  Survey  

Nos.291,  298,  299  and  300  of  Poppalguda  Village  

were, in fact, water bodies.  The report of the  

Central Water Commission indicated that none of the  

three  survey  numbers,  apart  from  Survey  No.300,  

disclosed the existence of a water body.  On the  

other  hand,  it  was  categorically  indicated  that  

there was no water body existing as on the date of  

inspection in plot Nos.291, 298 and 299.   

22

26. Apart from the above, Mr. Venugopal submitted  

that the possession of the land had already been  

taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894,  and  as  indicated  hereinbefore,  the  major  

portion of the construction work of the Outer Ring  

Road had been completed and only the two ends of  

the construction work had to be brought together in  

order  to  complete  the  project.  Mr.  Venugopal  

submitted that in respect of projects of national  

importance,  the  balance  of  convenience  and  

inconvenience of the majority of the citizens would  

have  to  be  considered   as  opposed  to  private  

interests.  He referred to the decision of this  

Court in Delhi Admn. vs. Gurdip Singh Uban [(2000)  

7 SCC 296], wherein it was held that when several  

plots of land are involved in an acquisition, the  

objection of several individual plot owners could  

not be entertained even under Section 5-A of the  

1894  Act,  particularly,  because  when  several  LA  

Collectors were dealing with different segments of  

23

the acquired lands, it would not be possible for  

one  of  such  Collectors  to  take  a  decision  with  

regard to the operation of the integrated project.  

27. Mr. Venugopal ended on the note that since the  

inconvenience  that  may  be  caused  to  a  few  

individual  plot  owners  could  not  outweigh  the  

interest of the public, the appeal filed by M/s  

Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. & others was liable  

to be dismissed.  

28. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Senior Advocate, who  

appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh, endorsed  

the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  Venugopal  and  added  

that the Appellants could not be considered to be  

“a person interested” within the meaning of Section  

3(b) of the 1894 Act.  He urged that the Collector  

had duly applied his mind to the fact situation and  

the  decision  ultimately  taken  did  not  merit  any  

interference.   

24

29. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate, appeared on  

behalf of Mr. Purshottam Reddy, who had made an  

application for intervention in the proceedings and  

submitted that the intervenor who was the Director  

of the Centre for Environmental Studies, Osmania  

University, had challenged the change of alignment  

on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  integrated  

hydrological  system  which  was  prevailing  in  the  

area would be destroyed if the Western Sector of  

the project was allowed to be completed.  

30. We  have  taken  pains  to  set  out  the  fact  

situation in some detail since a decision in this  

matter depends on the fact situation leading to the  

change of alignment of the Western Sector of the  

Outer  Ring  Road  Project  in  the  twin  cities  of  

Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh.  From  

the  site  plans  of  the  area  submitted  by  the  

parties, it is clear that both the two alignments  

touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was  

25

the main ground for the change of alignment in the  

first place.  From the reports submitted by the  

various local authorities, it is, however, clear  

that in order to proceed according to the first  

alignment,  the  respondents  would  have  to  cut  

through a great deal of rock, which is not so as  

far as the second alignment is concerned.  It is no  

doubt  true  that  in  terms  of  the  environmental  

policies  of  the  State  Government,  the  Western  

Sector of the project has been shown to be a highly  

ecologically sensitive zone, but we have no choice  

but to consider the viability of either of the two  

alignments for the purpose of the connectivity of  

the Outer Ring Road and while doing so we have to  

balance the aforesaid factor and also the interest  

of the private land owners as against the interest  

of the public.  Apart from the above, we have also  

to  take  into  consideration  the  factors  that  the  

major stretch of the Outer Ring Road is said to  

have been completed, even in the Western Sector,  

26

and only a small stretch involving the plots of the  

appellants, is yet to be completed.

31. There is no doubt that in the facts of this  

case  the  public  interest  will  out-weigh  the  

interest of the individual plot holders.  The only  

consideration is with regard to the preservation of  

the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as,  

plot No. 300 mentioned in the report of the Central  

Water Commission and also in the letter written by  

the Executive Engineer on 23rd December, 2006.  The  

arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have  

their  positive  value  but  looking  at  the  problem  

holistically,  we  are  of  the  view  that  their  

objections to the use of the lands for the purpose  

of the Outer Ring Road have to give way to the  

construction  of  the  said  road.   However,  while  

constructing the portion of the road affecting the  

plots in question, maximum care has to be taken by  

the  concerned  authorities  to  preserve  as  far  as  

27

possible the water bodies over which the road is to  

be constructed.

32. The  submissions  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants alleging that adequate opportunity had  

not been given to them under Section 5A of the Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894, to voice  their objections,  

is  without  substance   as  the  objections  filed  

were  duly  considered  by  the  Special  Deputy  

Collector and rejected by his order dated 21st July,  

2006.

33.  Although, we are not inclined to interfere  

with the orders impugned in the three appeals or to  

entertain the two writ petitions, we dispose of the  

same with a direction to the authorities to take  

all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies  

in  the  area  are  not  unduly  affected  and  are  

preserved to the maximum extent possible during the  

construction of the remaining portion of the Outer  

Ring Road on the Western Sector.      

28

34. The  Interlocutory  Applications  filed  for  

intervention are also disposed of by this order.  

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated:05.04.2010

29