IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1620 of 2009 Between: 1 Sarsan Achyut Reddy, S/o.S. Narayana Reddy, R/o. Pipparwada Village, Jainth Mandal, Adilabad District. 2 Tate Ashok Rao, S/o. Ramchander Rao, R/o. Pipparwada Village, Jainth Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 National Highways Authority of India, Rep by Chairman, Dwarakanagar, New Delhi. 2 National Highways Authority of India, Rep by its Project Director, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 5 The Tahsildar, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in proposing to construct Toll Plaza and related structures in the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No. 36/AA and 36/E, situated at Pipparwada Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District without following any procedure even though alternate lands are available as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, null and void violation of artices 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with the proposed construction of Toll Plaza and related structures in the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No. 36/AA and 36/E, situated at Pipparwada Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents, without issuing notice and without following due process of law, are trying to demarcate the petitioners’ land in an extent of Ac.2.26 guntas in S.Nos.35 and 36 situated in Pipparwada village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District with a view to acquiring it for the purpose of constructing Toll Plaza and related structures. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material placed on record. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent 1 and 2 has submitted that so far the respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioners proposing to acquire the land in question for the purpose of constructing Toll Plaza and related structures, and in case the respondents propose to acquire any piece of land belonging to the petitioners, they shall certainly issue notice to the petitioners and follow the due process under law. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondents shall certainly follow due process under law before going to acquire the petitioner’s land, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “If the respondents intend to construct Toll Plaza in the land belonging to the petitioners, they shall first acquire the land as per the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay suitable compensation. Unless and until the respondents acquire the land in question and pay suitable compensation to the petitioners, they shall not construct Toll Plaza in the land nor shall they dispossess the petitioners therefrom” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 10th February, 2009 bcj