THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11829 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners own the lands or properties in Poranki and Kanuru Villages of Penamaluru Mandal, abutting the National Highway No.9. The respondents have undertaken the widening of a section of the National Highway, between Machilipatnam and Vijayawada into a four-lane road. Notification was issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), on 22-10-2009, proposing to acquire various properties, including those, owned by the petitioners. In the course of enquiry conducted under Section 3-C of the Act, by the Competent Authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioners raised several objections for acquisition of their lands. It was stated that there was a clear discrimination in choosing to widen the road from the 4th K.M., from Vijayawada, to 8.5 K.M., and that their properties were sought to be acquired only on one side of the road, though, in the normal course, the properties are to be acquired, equally, on both sides. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 28-04-2010, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. As to the contention of the petitioners that widening is undertaken only on one side, the 3rd respondent observed that, on the other side, there exists an irrigation canal, adjacent to the road, and that the consultants have finalized the alignment, keeping the existence of the canal bund, in view. It was also observed that, it is not at all possible to widen the road, beyond the bund of the canal. The petitioners challenge the view taken by the 3rd respondent through order dated 28-04-2010, and ultimately challenge the very notification dated 24-09-2009. They contend that the canal has eroded substantially to the neighbouring land, and if the original bund is restored, there would not be any necessity for the respondents to take a curve, or to require the land only on one side. Other grounds are also urged. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the widening of 0 to 4 K.M. in Vijayawada was not taken up, since it passes through dense residential area, and that there is already a four-lane road, at that place. So far as the grievance of the petitioners about acquisition of the land on one side at Kanuru and Poranki villages is concerned, it is stated that the widening on the other side is not at all possible, since an irrigation canal is existing on that side, in close proximity. Smt. K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents did not take the relevant facts into account, and though the petitioners have furnished the opinion of the experts and engineers, the same was not taken into account. She contends that there is adequate space between the edge of the canal, and the edge of the existing road, and there would not be any difficulty in acquiring the land on both sides. She submits that the petitioners are made to bear the brunt of the acquisition, on one side, and the respondents acted in a discriminatory manner. Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the consultancy agency has taken every aspect into account, and has accordingly finalized the alignment of the road. He submits that the authorities of the irrigation department have also expressed the view, that it is not at all possible to widen the road, towards the canal side. The widening of the road on National Highway No.9, between Machilipatnam and Vijayawada is undertaken by the respondents. At some places, bypass roads were also proposed. Normally, whenever a road is widened, the land, that is needed for the purpose, is acquired on both sides, to similar extents. Where, however, it becomes inevitable, such as, to straighten a curve, totally or partly, or to avoid important installations, or ancient religious structures of prominence; the widening is undertaken only on one side, and accordingly, the properties are acquired. In the instant case, it appears that the road, at which the properties of the petitioners are situated, is straight. However, on the ground that on one side of the road there exists an irrigation canal, the acquisition is undertaken on only one side. There is serious difference in the versions put forward by the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, as to the feasibility. The contention of the petitioners, drawing comparison between the road, that exists from zero to 4 K.M., with the one, up to 8.5 K.M, does not deserve consideration. However, their grievance, as to the acquisition of property, only on one side of the road; needs thorough examination. The petitioners have submitted certain reports, said to have been prepared by experts. If there exists any possibility to widen the road, equally, on both sides, the same needs to be considered, in the interest of all. The mere fact that the tendering process, etc., has progressed to certain extent, cannot be a factor to reject the request of the petitioners. Hence the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the findings of the 3rd respondent on item 5, pertaining to the alignment of the road, between 4/2 and 5/2 K.M., near the lands of the petitioners. The representations, together with the opinions of the experts, if any, shall be taken into account, and the matter shall be decided afresh, in consultation with the authorities of the Irrigation Department. This exercise shall be completed as early as possible, and not later than four weeks from today. On other aspects, the contention of the petitioners is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-03-2011. KO