IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9587 of 2002 Between: Anne Kartik ..... PETITIONER AND National Highways Authority of India and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9587 of 2002 O R D E R: The only controversy involved in this writ petition is with regard to the payment of compensation to the acquired land of the petitioner admeasuring 806 sq.mtrs. covered by 64 mtrs length and 14.65 mtrs width situated in RS No.375/1 of Gannavaram town, Krishna District. It is stated that the petitioner sought permission from the VGT Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada for construction of the buildings in his land by furnishing an undertaking that he would transfer the said 806 sq.mtrs of land to the VGT Urban Development Authority but not to the National Highway Authorities which in fact taken up the road widening process. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in respect of 806 sq.mtrs. It is the case of the respondents that the land of an extent of 1200 sq.mtrs. situated in Sy.No.375/1 belonging to the petitioner was acquired and compensation was paid for an extent of 394 sq.mtrs. But in so far as 806 sq.mtrs are concerned it is stated that the petitioner has furnished an undertaking that he would transfer an extent of 64 meters length X 14.65 width area in Sy.No.375/1 with existing structures at free of cost to the concerned Department which has taken up the road widening work. It is stated that the road widening work has been taking up by the National High Way Authority, therefore, it cannot be said that the undertaking given to the Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority is not applicable to the National High Way Authority. It is not in dispute that as per the undertaking given by the petitioner it reveals that the petitioner has agreed for handing over the land admeasuring 64 mtrs x 14.65 mtrs to the concerned Department carrying out the road widening work without claiming any compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for compensation merely because the National High Way Authority has been carrying out the road widening work. The undertaking given by the petitioner is clear that the petitioner would not claim any compensation if the said land is taken for road widening by the concerned department carrying out the road widening work. However, admittedly, the said dispute was referred to the Collector, Krishna who was appointed as arbitrator by the Central Government as per the provisions of the National High Way Act for settlement of the arbitration claims. If that be so, it is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the arbitrator. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the Arbitrator. It is needless to mention that the Arbitrator may resolve the dispute without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 12.08.2010 Dsr