The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.5600 of 2002 Dated 22nd July, 2010 Between: Thodi Laxma Reddy and 2 others. …Petitioners And The Government of A.P., Rep. by Prl.Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None appeared Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in laying two roads in Survey Nos.81, 82, 88, 336, 337 and 344 of Ippalapally Village of Thimmajipet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and unconstitutional. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing the respondents and perused the record. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the lands covered by the above-mentioned survey numbers; that the respondents are undertaking to lay roads under the food for work scheme from Ippalapally to Marikal Village through Survey Nos.336, 337 and 344 and from Ippalapally to Hasnapur Thanda through Survey Nos.81, 82 and 88 belonging to the petitioners without initiating the proceedings under the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is averred that the road from Ippalapally to Marikal Village passes through Survey Nos.344 & 336 but not through Survey No.337. It is also admitted that the road from Ippalapally to Hasnapur Thanda passes through the lands belonging to the petitioners in Survey Nos.81, 82 and 88. It is further averred that these two roads have been in existence from six years; that the respondents are only trying to strengthen the existing roads and that as the roads were already formed and in existence, the lands were not acquired. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not present to controvert the contents of the counter-affidavit. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents that they are only trying to improve the existing roads, no direction can be given to the respondents to acquire the lands. However, the respondents cannot undertake improvement of the existing roads without the consent of the petitioners, who are admittedly the owners of the lands in question. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7039 of 2002, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd July, 2010 lur