IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4764 of 2008 Between: 1. Maskori Sattaiah S/o. Late Pentaiah, R/o. H.No. 4-13, Gangaram Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Maskori Narasimha S/o. Late Pentaiah, R/o. H.No. 4- 13, Gangaram Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Secretarya, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer (R & B) National Highway (Authority), Erramanjil, Hyderabad. .....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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by directing the Respondents not to lay road through the land by dispossessing the writ Petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac 0.18 guntas by dispossessing forming the part of Sy.No. 379 touching to the existing main road situated at Gangaram Hamlet, Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal and town, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SANJEEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners is that they possess a small extent of Ac.0.18 guntas of land forming part of Sy.No.379, situated at Gangaram hamlet, Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that the National Highways Authority has been highhandedly proceeding to lay road across the land also without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petitioners have also drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.23769 of 2006, which was decided on 11th September 2007, wherein the single Judge has recorded that there was a proposal to lay a road and that no road has been laid or possession has been taken of the land of the petitioners. In the counter affidavit it was also pointed out by the Chief Engineer of the National Highways Authority that as and when the respondents propose to lay a road, they will do so only after acquiring the land of the petitioners following due process of law or with their consent. I, therefore, have no hesitation, whatsoever, in my mind that the land of the petitioners will not be taken possession of by the National Highways Authority either without their consent or without following due process of law as and when their proposal to lay a road fructifies. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 7th March 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}