THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12473 of 2011 Dated 27th April, 2011 Between: Samudrala Jhansi Lakshmi and another …Petitioners And The Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Prabhakar Peri Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri S.S.Varma Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land in Survey No.193 of Korlapahad Village, Kethipalli Mandal, Nalgonda District for establishment of a toll plaza, by overruling the petitioners’ objections vide proceedings No.D/1089/2010, dated 24.03.2011. I have heard Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The land belonging to the petitioners was notified for acquisition under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) for establishment of a toll plaza on NH-9 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada section. The petitioners have filed an objection petition under Section 3-C of the Act. In their objection petition, the petitioners have stated that the land belonging to the Government in Survey No.285 of Inupamula Village, Kethepally Mandal, is available at a distance of 1 km from the land of the petitioners, which is notified for acquisition. The objections filed having been rejected, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the petitioners’ objection relating to the availability of alternative Government land was referred to the Requisition Department i.e., NHAI, Hyderabad, to offer technical and feasibility report and that in the proceedings, dated 16.03.2011, the General Manager (Technical) & Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, has reported that the said proposal of acquiring the land belonging to the Government for establishing toll plaza is technically not feasible. Having regard to the said report, respondent No.4 has rejected the petitioners’ objection. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that no reasons have been stated by respondent No.4 for rejecting the petitioners’ objection, except placing reliance on the technical report of the General Manager (Technical) & Project Director. In my opinion, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. Respondent No.4 has referred the petitioners’ objection to the General Manager of the Requisition Department, who evidently vide his report, dated 16.03.2011, opined that it is not technically feasible to utilise the alternative land suggested by the petitioners for establishment of toll plaza. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision of respondent No.4 cannot be termed as either illegal or arbitrary. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.15180 and 15181 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th April, 2011 VGB