IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.8076 of 2010 Between: The Orvakallu Gram Panchayat, Orvakallu, Reptd., by its Sarpanch-B.Subbamma and others. … Petitioner And The Union of India, reptd., by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Somakonda Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.S.Varma, Addl. Standing Counsel for Central Govt., for R1. AGP for Land Acquisition for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to lay the bypass road as suggested by the Tahsildar in Rc.A.No.196/2009, dated 2-1-2010, instead of widening the existing road as published in Notification No.1806, dated 3-11-2009 in the Official Gazette under Section 3A(1) of the National High Ways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”). I have heard Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.2. The petitioners pleaded that respondent No.2, instead of laying a bypass road, has notified for acquisition of lands and buildings in Orvakallu village in connection with widening of National High Way No.18. According to them, the Tahsildar, Orvakallu Mandal, submitted report, dated 2-1-2010, to the District Collector, Kurnool, which reveals that laying of bypass road is more feasible and economical than widening the existing road by acquiring lands and buildings in the said village. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 considered the objections of the petitioners and other villagers and also the report of the Tahsildar and passed order, dated 25-3-2010, rejecting the petitioners’ objections. In my opinion, the relief claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted in view of rejection of the objections of the petitioners by respondent No.2 in exercise of his statutory power under Section 3C(2) of the Act. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such rejection, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedies to question the said rejection order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12-4-2010 MNR