THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20013 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in encroaching into the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.15, 32/C, 99/A and 99/B of Kompally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of widening of the National Highway No.7 upto 250 feet from the existing 200 feet without initiating any acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the aforesaid lands, which are adjoining the existing National Highway No.7. It is their grievance that initially road widening was done to an extent of 200 feet, but the respondents again proposed to widen 250 feet, by which, certain portions of their lands are sought to be taken by the respondents. It is urged that though steps have been taken to widen the road by acquiring portions of the lands of the petitioners, no proceedings have been initiated under the Act. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the road widening is being done within the right of way (ROW) i.e., 200 feet only and as such there is no encroachment as alleged by the petitioners. I deem it appropriate to extract paragraph “9” of the counter affidavit, which read as follows:- “It is submitted that the main contention of writ petitioners is that the road widening is being done to an extent of 250 feet from the existing 200 feet and no steps were being taken for acquisition of their lands. It is submitted that as stated above the road widening is being done within the right of way (ROW) i.e., 200 ft only and as such there is no question of encroaching into the lands of writ petitioners. However, it is respectfully submitted that in case any further lands are required the same will be acquired by duly following the process.” From the above averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that there is no proposal to widen the road as alleged by the petitioners from the existing 200 feet to 250 feet. As it is stated in the aforesaid paragraph that if any further road widening is done, the respondents would follow the procedure contemplated under the Act, I deem it appropriate to place on record the said statement made by the respondents in paragraph 9. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 30-06-2011 Prv