HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4449 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.17-2-484 and 485, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Recently, the respondents have undertaken widening of the road in the locality. An extent of 31 square yards of land from the premises of the petitioner was to be effected. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated and an award was passed on 20.07.2010. The petitioner received the compensation. The petitioner states that the respondents are trying to demolish certain premises existing on the portion of the land, which was not acquired at all. The writ petition was listed ‘for admission’ on 28.02.2011. Since the controversy is in a way very narrow compass, this Court granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Thereafter, the matter has undergone several adjournments and the relevant record has been produced before this Court. The petitioner does not deny the fact that the respondents have acquired affected portion of the premises owned by her and mulgies are said to have been demolished. The respondents contend that taking advantage of delay in execution of the work, the petitioner constructed mulgies clandestinely on the acquired portion. The record placed before this Court discloses that the respondents have fixed a line up to which the road must be extended. The existing constructions that were touching the road in its present form are not up to the line. In certain cases, the public property in the form of pavement etc. was encroached. While determining the area affected for widening, the respondents have naturally included the encroached area and paid compensation, only for the one that actually belongs to the owners of the property. The construction made by the petitioner has partly protruded into the public property such as pavement, road margin etc. Being under the impression that even that area was to be acquired, the petitioner is insisting on retention of the rear side of the property. The fact, however, remains that the property to an extent of 31 square yards was acquired and rest of the portion outside the proposed road line was only an encroachment. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondents shall, however, maintain the same road line throughout. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:01.04.2011 GJ