IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 5749 of 2001 Between: 1 Bathula Srinivasa Reddy S/o Sambireddy R/o Gurazavolu Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur Dist. 2 Bathula Bala Krishna Reddy S/o Sambireddy R/o 12-20-4/31, Prakashnagar, Narsaraopet, Guntur Dist. 3 Kakumanu China Peri Reddy S/o Kotireddy R/o Ramireddypet, Narsaraopet, Guntur Dist. ....PETITIONERS AND 1 The Engineer-in-chief (R&B), A & Eop. Hyderabad. 2 K.M.C. Constructions, Old Post Office Road, Piduguralla, Guntur Dist. 3 The District Collector. Guntur. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Revenue Division, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and article 14 of Constitution of India in construction of bridge in petitioners lands in S.Nos.106/2p, 32-A, 31-B, 32-B, to an extent of 3.12 acres and in S.Nos.106/2, 31-A, 31-B, 32-A and 32-B to an extent of 3.12 acres and 1.50 acres respectively situated in Gurazavolu Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District and consequently direct the respondents not to construct bridge or road in respect of petitioners lands without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the respondents in undertaking the construction of a bridge through the petitioners’ lands in S.Nos.106/2p, 32-A, 31-B, 32-B, to an extent of Ac.3.12 and in S.Nos.106/2, 31-A, 31-B, 32-A and 32-B to an extent of Ac.1.50 in Gurazavolu village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District without following the due process of law. 2. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the said lands and in evidence of their possession and ownership, reference is made to the Pattadar Pass Books. They claimed title to the said land under registered document Nos.596/1996 dated 26-1-1996 and 838/1995 dated 12-07-1995. 3. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities were proposing to construct a bridge through their lands and in this process, they came to the petitioners lands for the purpose of inspection and measurements. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents had not taken recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and their failure in this regard renders the action initiated wholly illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, they ﬁled the present Writ Petition. 5. A Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Respondent No.1, the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), A&EAP Hyderabad. It is admitted by the respondent No.1 that the authorities are undertaking the work of widening and strengthening of Kurnoor-Guntur Road from Thokapalli to Pericherla, and in this process the land of the petitioner No.1 would alone be eﬀected. There is a specific denial as regards the statement that the land in S.No.106/2 and 31 would be eﬀected in the road widening. Only the lands situated in S.No.32/A and 32/B would be eﬀected by the by-pass road. It is also stated that Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated but were yet to be finalized. In view of the order passed by this Court on 3.4.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.7334 of 2001 in W.P.No.5749 of 2001, directing the stay of proceedings, including construction of the road and bridge through the petitioners’ land, the respondent No.1 stated that the road work was stopped. 6. In the light of the counter ﬁled by the respondent No.1, it is manifest that the grievance of the petitioners that proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not initiated, in so far as their lands were eﬀected by the works undertaken by the respondents, is not correct. 7. The counter aﬃdavit of the respondent No.1 makes it clear that the authorities were mindful of their responsibilities and that they would adhere to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before depriving the petitioners of their lands if the same are required. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Dated 22nd September, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5749 OF 2001 Dated 22nd September, 2008