THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.21039, 21040, 21081, 21668 of 2010; 1808, 1816 and 1826 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: National Highway No.9 connects Machilipatnam with Mumbai, passing through Vijayawada, Hyderabad, Sholapur and Pune. The respondents have initiated steps for widening of highway, between Machilipatnam and Vijayawada. The petitioners are the owners of land, abutting the highway, between K.Ms., 4 and 8.5, from Vijayawada side. A notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 24-09-2009, proposing to acquire the effected lands and properties. This was followed by an enquiry by the Competent Authority under the Act, comparable to the one, under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. After taking into account, the objections, the competent authority issued further notifications. Similar exercise was undertaken in respect of the lands belong to the petitioners, in various writ petitions. The petitioners contend that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. They contend that there is no need at all, for widening the road, since there is free flow of traffic. It is also their case that, if the respondents intend to expand the road, they can consider the feasibility of laying only a by-pass road, as was done at Vuyyuru and other places. According to the petitioners, the respondents adopted a discriminatory approach for the owners of the property, abutting the road from 0.4 K.Ms., on the one hand, and 8.5 K.Ms., on the other hand. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits are filed, and the allegations made by the petitioners are denied. They state that there is already a four-lane roan from zero to 4 K.Ms., and the proposed acquisition is to make the existing road into a four-lane one, from 4 to 8.5 K.Ms. It is stated that the option of laying by-pass road was considered and the proposal was dropped on finding that it is not feasible. It was further mentioned that though the initial proposal was to widen the road up to 200 feet, it was restricted to 150 feet, on considering the representation made by the local public representatives. Heard Sri Y. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, and Sri S. Srinivasa Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority. The petitioners own properties abutting the national highway No.9 in the outskirts of Vijayawada city, at 0.4 to 8.5 K.Ms., towards Machilipatnam. The existing highway is proposed to be widened to 150 feet. The abutting lands, structures, etc., are effected, and accordingly, steps were initiated for acquiring them. The first objection raised by the petitioners is that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory approach, since no acquisition is undertaken, in respect of road from zero to 4 K.Ms., and their properties are being acquired. The reply of the respondents is that the road between zero to 4 K.Ms., is already developed into a four- lane. This is not denied by the petitioners. Another facet of this very ground is that, while the width of the road, from zero to 4 K.Ms., is 100 feet, the one, between 4 to 8.5 K.Ms., is sought to be widened up to 150 feet. It is difficult to maintain the same width of the road throughout. Much would depend upon the type of development that has already taken place. While it would not be much difficulty in widening it to the maximum, where no structures or other objections exist, the authorities have to adopt a practical approach, at places, where the highway passes through the city or semi developed places. The record discloses that the road is being widened up to 200 feet, where it is passing through villages, and taking into account the development that exists in the suburban area of Vijayawada, it was decided to restrict the widening, to 150 feet. This Court cannot adopt any hard and fast rule in this regard. Unless mala fides are attributed and proved, the decision taken by the respondents in this regard cannot be found fault with. The petitioners contend that the respondents ought to have considered the option of laying a by-pass road. By-pass roads are laid to completely skip over a village or town. When the highway is passing through the town itself, by-pass cannot be an option, in respect of part of the area. It is not in dispute that the highway is exist up to 4 K.Ms., in the Vijayawada city. Even if by-pass is to be laid from there onwards, it would pass through the city only. In such cases, it is a misnomer to call it as a by-pass road. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the respondents. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-02-2011. KO