M/S. JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

                    [2010] 4 S.C.R. 75


  M/S. JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.                 A
                              v.
        STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2008)
                      APRIL 05, 2010
                                                               B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 5A - Land required for
construction of Outer Ring Road (ORR) for the twin cities of
Hyderabad and Secunderabad - ORR alignment finalised - C
Acquisition notification - Representations for change of ORR
alignment on the ground that land situated in the said
alignment comprised of water bodies - Alternative alignment
suggested - Accordingly notification issued for acquiring land
in Narsingi Village and Poppalguda Village - Challenged by· D
appellants-land-owners - Held: The reports of local authorities
stated that the first alignment involved ·considerable amount
of rock cutting which was not so, as far as the second
alignment was concerned - That apart, major stretch of the
Outer Ring Road had already been completed - Only a small E
stretch involving plots of appellants, was yet to be completed
- In such situation, public interest would out-weigh the interest
of the individual plot holders - However, concerned
authorities directed to take maximum care to preserve as far
as possible the water bodies over which the road is to be F
constructed - Environmental law - Urban development.

     The State required land for the purpose of Outer Ring
Road {ORR) project for the twin cities of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad. The ORR alignment was finalised in April
2005 providing for 159 Km. road around the twin cities         G
and Ranga Reddy district. Notification was issued for
acquisition of various lands. Since the alignment of
Western sector was through Poppalguda and other
villages which comprised of water bodies,
                            75                                 H
   76     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A representations were made for change of said alignment.
  On inspection, the technical wing of ORR project felt that
  the alignment involved rock cutting, which was highly
  uneconomical and also affecting a water body and school
  building. An alternative alignment was suggested by the
B Committee. The Alignment Committee recommended that
  the notified Western Alignment joining Phase I at
  Poppalguda Village was not advisable and an alignment
  passing through Narsingi Village would lessen the
  expenses for cutting through rock forming part of
c proposed alignment. The Alignment Committee also
  observed that the new alignment avoided all water bodies
  in the area which was an ecologically sensitive area with
  a need to protect all water bodies. The new alignment
  was finalised. On 13.12.2002, a Notification was issued
  under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for
0
  acquiring the land belonging to the appellants situated
  at Narsingi Village and at Poppalguda Village. Objections
  were filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
  1894 that there was a water body in the impugned
E alignment. The objections were rejected and on 29.7.2006,
  a draft declaration was published under Section 6 of the
  Act. The writ petitions challenging the acquisition
  proceedings were dismissed. Hence these appeals. The
  Director of the Centre for Environmental studies filed an
  interlocutory application for intervention challenging the
F alignment on account of the fact that the hydrological
  system in the area would be destroyed if Western Sector
  of the project was allowed.

      Disposing of the appeals and interlocutory
G application, the Court

      HELD: 1. 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 the
H main ground for the change of alignment in the first
  JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v.          77
         STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
  place. The reports submitted by the various local A
  authorities stated, that in order to proceed according to
  the first alignment, the respondents had to cut through
  a great deal of rock, which was not so as far as the
  second alignment was concerned. In terms of the
  environmental policies of the State Government, the B
  Western Sector of the project is shown to be a highly
  ecologically sensitive zone, but there was 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 the said factor and also the interest c
  of the private land owners as against the interest of the
  public has to be balanced. Apart from that, the major
  stretch of the Outer Ring Road is said to had been
  completed, even in the Western Sector, and only a small
. stretch involving the plots of the appellants, was yet to D
  be completed. [Para 30] (89-F-H; 90-A-C]

     2. 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 E
untouched, such as, plot No. 300 of Poppalguda Village
mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission
and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer
on 23rd December, 2006. Looking at the problem
holistically, the objections raised by the appellants as to F
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 G
possible the water bodies over which the road is to be
constructed. The authorities are directed 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 H
    78      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western
    Sector. [Paras 31, 33) [90-C-F; 91-A-B]

         Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors.
    (2006) 3 SCC 549; Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi & Ors.
B   (2001) 6 SCC 496; PUBLIC v. State of West Bengal AIR 1993
    Cal. 215; Munshi Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (1973) 2
    SCC 337; Union of India & Ors. v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8
    SCC 14; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
    Chenai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627; Ram Krishan Mahajan v.
    Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 634;
C   Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban (2000) 7 SCC 296,
    referred to.

                        Case Law Reference:
         AIR 1993 C<!I. 215       referred to        Para 14
D
         (2001) 6 sec 496         referred to        Para 14
         (2006) 3 sec 549         referred to        Para 14
         (1973) 2 sec 337         referred to        Para 15
E
         (2004) a sec 14          referred to        Para 15
         (2005) 1 sec 627         referred to        Para 15
         (2007) 6 sec 634         referred to        Para 15
F        (2000) 1 sec 296         referred to        Para 25

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 52
    of 2008.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 1.10.2007 of the High
G   Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad in Writ
    Petition No. 22809 of 2006.

                              WITH
H   C.A. Nos. 74 & 215 of 2008.
  JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v.                  79
         STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
     Gopal Subramaniam, ASG., Bhaskar Gupta, AK. Ganguly,           A
Altaf Ahmad, K.K. Venugopal, Anoop G. Chaudhri, K.
Parmeshwar, Samiran Sharma, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma,
E. Ajay Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj
Choudhuri, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Ankul
Talwar, (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr.       B
Singh, T.V. George for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Civil Appeal No.52 of 2008
arising out of SLP(C)No.19592 of 2007 filed by Mis. Jayabheri C
Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others, was taken up for hearing and
final disposal along with Civil Appea·I 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 D
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        E
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        F
and 294 of Poppalguda Village of Rajendranagar 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 G
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 H
    80         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   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 Ml
    s. MECON for feasibility study.

         4. The report submitted by M/s. MECON contemplated the
8
    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 officers of the Government
    and HUDA, the project was revised so that ORR could pass
    through open areas avoiding major settlements and habitations.
C   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.

D       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
E 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 technical wing of the
  ORR Project. It was found that the alignment involving huge
F 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
G 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 a/ia, provided as follows :

H        (i)     The alignment should not affect any water body, as
 JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. 81
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
              it was environmentally sensitive zone.               A

      (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     8
              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           C
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      D
Alignment Committee, once again studied the entire matter and
recommended that the alignment suggested by NSS
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         E
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
                                                                   F
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    G
to the appellants situated at Narsingi Village. Another notice
of even date was also issued seeking to acquire the lands
belonging 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,         H
    82         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B               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
c                issued on 21-4-2005, which was a straight
                 alignment.

         (d)     impugned alignment was finalized without any
                 proper survey and verification.

D     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
E 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.

F       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.

G      9. After considering the objections filed on behalf of some
  of the land owners, a draft 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
H 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Andhra
 JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v.                   83
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Pradesh declared that the land specified in the schedule to the     A
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,        B
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         c
did not cover the land of 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     D
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          E
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         F
reasons given for alteration of the alignment was that water
bodies on the said alignment would be disturbed, in fact, the
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   G
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,
                                                                    H
     84       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B Nos.293 and 294 were also used for wet and dry agriculture.

         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.
c
           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
·D   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
E    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 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
F    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
G    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
H referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in
 JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. 85
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [(2006)        A
3  sec   549], wherein the need for balancing water and land
resources for 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           8
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       C
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];          D
(iii) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur
Chenai & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 627]; and (iv) 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      E
to be taken away, to raise an objection, has been emphatically
demonstrated.

     16. Mr. Gupta submitted that since a very valuable right to
obj~ct to the acquisition of land has been given to a person
                                                                       F
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         G
decision had already been taken by the Government even
before the publication of the Section 4 notification. The report
of the Collector dated 23rd December, 1996, was nothing but
an empty formality.
                                                                       H
    86       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A         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
8   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 Mis NSS Associates
    along with its communication dated 15th November, 2005.

C        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 of the land involving the
    changed alignment of the ring road.

D       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
E 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
F comprised of the Principal Secretary, Infrastructure and
  Investment Department (llT), Managing Director, INCAP and
  Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority
  (HUDA) and other officers of HUDA, the Chief Engineer and
  Special Collector, ORR, wherein in paragraph (e) the
  Committee was of the view that the data available was
G 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
H Committee which was based on the recommendations of the
   JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. 87
  STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
. Pollution Control Board in which it was stated that the alignment A
  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.            B

       21. Mr. Ahmed urged that based on an incorrect
 appreciation of the topography relating to the 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 C
 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 D
 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.  E

        23. Appearing for the Hyderabad Urban Development
- Authority (HUDA), Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate,
   referred to the report of the Alignment Committee, on which
  strong reliance was placed by him. Mr. Venugopal submitted F
  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 G
  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 H
        88      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 4 S.C.R.


    A   the said hillocks at Poppalguda the second alignment was
        proposed through Narsingi village.

             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
    8
        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
    C   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
    D   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.

             26. Apart from the above, Mr. Venugopal submitted that
    E   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
    F   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
    G   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
        the acquired lands, it would not be possible for one of such
    H
 JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. 89
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Collectors to take a decision with regard to the operation of       A
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    8
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 C
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.
                                                                    D
     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           E
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     F
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,    G
which was 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      H
    90       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c Road is said to have been completed, even in the Western
  Sector, 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.
D 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
E 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
F question, maximum care has to be taken by the concerned
  authorities to preserve as far as possible the water bodies over
  which the road is to be constructed.

       32. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants
G 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.

H        33. Although, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders
 JAYABHERI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. v. 91
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
impugned in the three appeals or to entertain the two writ           A
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              B
Sector.

     34. The Interlocutory Applications filed for intervention are
also disposed of by this order.

D.G.         Appeals & Interlocutory application disposed of.        C