IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.15413 of 2006 Between: Smt. K.Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Sri K.Ganesh and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Project Director, Outer Ring Road and Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.15413 OF 2006 ORDER: Heard the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette ORR.No.64, dated 20-04-2006, for acquisition of the petitioners land to an extent of Ac.4-38 guntas in Survey No.32 and Ac.0-22.5 guntas in Survey No.38 of Muneerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for formation of Outer Rind Road as malafide, arbitrary and illegal and consequently to declare the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification ORR.No.73, dated 16-04-2005, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by respondent No.1 as void. 3. Several facts had been narrated in the counter affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit had been filed by respondent No.2. 5. While issuing rule nisi on 27-07-2006 in W.P.MP.No.19203 of 2006, this Court made the following order: “The proposed acquisition of the petitioners’ lands in an extent of Ac.4.38 guntas and Ac.0.22 ½ guntas in S.Nos.32 and 38 (Sub-division Nos.32/4 and 38/1) of Muneerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the formation of outer ring rode, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide A.P.Gazette Notification ORR.No.64 dated 20-04-2005 and ORR.No.73 dated 16-04-2005 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The allegations of malafides are made against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, with regard to change of alignment, these respondents are directed to file a counter affidavit within two weeks from the date of receipt of Rule Nisi; along with W.P.No.11767 of 2006.” 6. In the counter affidavit, several averments made in the affidavit had been denied. 7. It is stated that the allegation made with regard to the change of alignment is not correct. It is also further stated that the petitioner had attributed malafidies against respondent No.2, which are not correct. It is also stated that respondent No.2 was appointed as Special Collector to perform the duties under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even assuming that there is a change of alignment, the petitioner cannot challenge the decision of the technical experts in forming the Outer Ring Road. The Hon’ble Division Bench in W.P.No.23611 of 2001, dated 01-11-2001 held as follows: “Having heard the learned the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the question as to how and in what manner a road should be laid is a matter of policy, which is within the exclusive domain of the state. The Court, even if a section of public would suffer inconvenience, cannot interfere in the matter. It may be for the concerned authorities to consider the matter on its own merits.” 8. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders need to be passed and this writ petition can be disposed of in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J October 26, 2009 MD