The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.25992 of 2009 Order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek declaration that the action of respondent No.2, in not taking over uniform extents of land on either side in the process of widening Kabela Road at Labour Colony, Vijayawada, is illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to take over uniform extents of land on either side of the said road. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that all the petitioners own house properties abutting Kabela Road at Labour Colony and that the said Kabela Road was sought to be widened from 60 feet to 100 feet. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are intending to widen the said road only on one side, where the petitioners’ houses are located, as the properties on the other side of the road were owned by influential persons and that in spite of the petitioners’ raising objections thereto, respondents have marked the portions for removal of their structures. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, on instructions, submits that no steps have yet been taken for the said road widening and that merely notices were issued, requesting the private land owners including the petitioners herein to surrender the extents of land required for the purpose of widening of the road and informing them that a meeting in that regard will be held on 29th October, 2009 and other dates. As of now, no notification acquiring any extents of land from the petitioners for the purpose of road widening has been issued. On mere apprehension, the petitioners have approached this Court alleging that the respondents have, unilaterally, marked the portions for removal. As notices were issued to the petitioners only requesting them to part with the extents of land required for road widening and as the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A.Act’) have not yet been initiated, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners except by due process of law, if the petitioners express their unwillingness to part with their lands in the negotiations, if any, held by them. However, it is open to the respondents to initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, if lands of the petitioners along with the structures, if any, raised thereon are required for the purpose of road widening. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 1st December, 2009 lur