IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30161 of 2011 Between: Korrapati Ankamma Rao & others. … Petitioners And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A. Manoj Kumar for Sri Rama Rao Ghanta Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri R. Satyanarayana Swamy for Sri S.S. Varma Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30161 of 2011 ORDER:- The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the land for widening the road to the extent of 26 meters only is acquired, the respondents have been interfering with their possession to the extent of 39 meters width. The petitioners pleaded that though initially under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”) the land is proposed to be acquired for widening the road to the width of 39 meters from the centre of the existing road, the award was passed restricting the width to 26 meters, but the respondents have been unduly interfering with their land falling between 26 and 39 meters. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing Sri S.S. Varma, learned Standing counsel for National Highways Authority of India, placed before the Court letter, dated 20.11.2011, addressed by the Projector Director, NHAI, PIU, Vijayawada, wherein it is informed that even though the land to the width of 39 meters from the centre of the road is needed, by oversight, acquisition was restricted to only 26 meters in Sy.No.693 while in all other survey numbers the land to the width of 39 meters has been acquired and that the balance land will be acquired after duly following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act and possession of the same shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act only. In view of the above clarification made by the Project Director, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the property other than the one, which is acquired, except by following due process of law. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37368 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.11.2011 ES