THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10347 of 2010 ORDER: National Highway No.18 connects Kurnool and Chittoor towns. The respondents have initiated steps for widening the same to a four- lane road. As of now, the highway passes through a Village, Orvakallu of Kurnool District. Notifications under the relevant provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued. An enquiry was contemplated and the 2nd respondent has undertaken such an enquiry. On account of the widening, some of the existing structures are to be affected. The owners thereof made representations to the effect that the option of laying bypass road may be considered. On the other hand, the farmers, whose lands would be affected, in case bypass road is laid, have also submitted representations, opposing the proposals. Ultimately the 2nd respondent passed an order, rejecting the request of the villagers, who are proposing bypass road. The Grampanchayat of Orvakallu, represented by its Sarpanch, filed this writ petition. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, quite large number of shops are going to be affected, in case the existing road is widened, and the option of laying bypass road ought to have been chosen. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that both the proposals were considered, objectively, and taking the relative merits into account, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order. He contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have taken the steps, contemplated under the Act, for the purpose of widening the existing road. An enquiry, similar to the one, under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the L.A. Act’), was taken up. The persons, whose properties were to be affected, have submitted representations. Both the options, viz., to widen the existing road, or to lay a bypass road, were examined, in detail. On a consideration of the proposals and representations, the 2nd respondent took the view that it is not at all advisable for laying a bypass road. A serious objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has already been mentioned that the enquiry undertaken by the 2nd respondent is similar to the one, under Section 5 of the L.A. Act. It is only the persons, whose lands are affected, on account of the acquisition, that can make representations and raise objections. Third parties do not have any right to object to the acquisition. The Grampanchayat can certainly pass a resolution and forward the same to the concerned authorities. However, it cannot challenge an order. passed under the relevant provisions of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04-02-2011. KO