THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1935 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.17/265 abutting Tipparajuvari Street of Nellore Municipal Corporation. The street is parallel to Trunk Road separated by two rows of houses and a strip of Government land vested in the Municipal Corporation. The 2nd respondent owns a house abutting the Trunk Road. The Municipal Corporation intended to widen the Trunk Road and in the process, a strip of 10 ft. x 13 ft. belonging to the 2nd respondent was affected. Instead of paying compensation, in terms of money, the Corporation has offered its land to an extent of 7 ft. x 13 ft. on the rear side of the house of the 2nd respondent. The proposal was agreed to and the widening has taken place. The petitioner contends that a lane is passing through the Government land in between the house of herself and the 2nd respondent and that she too has encroached part of the Government land. Her grievance is that on account of the alienation of a strip of land in favour of the 2nd respondent, the road is being shifted towards the plot of the petitioner and in the process, she is sought to be evicted from the area under her occupation. The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 07.02.2005, through which the 1st respondent offered to 2nd respondent a strip of 7x13 ft. land in exchange, for the portion affected in the road widening. The petitioner raised several contentions, including the one of the jurisdiction of the Corporation to resort to such a process. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner. It is stated that knowing fully well that the land on the rear side of her house belongs to Corporation, the petitioner has encroached into it and the encroachment has since been removed. It is also sated that the Corporation is vested with the power to acquire the land for its purpose either by resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or negotiations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner does not dispute that the Corporation owns the land in between the houses that are abutting the G.T.Road on the one hand and Tipparajuvari Street on the other. Though an attempt is made by the petitioner to depict part of that land as public lane, there was nothing on record to substantiate that. The property owned by the 2nd respondent abutting the Trunk Road is affected in the road widening. Since the Corporation is not in a position to compensate for the affected portion, the impugned proceedings were issued offering almost an equal piece of land in exchange. The petitioner cannot have any plausible objection for such a course of action. It is not as if the respondents have encroached into any portion of the land owned by the petitioner. The necessity for the Corporation to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for widening of the G.T. Road would have arisen, if only they do not have any other alternative. The affected party i.e., 2nd respondent did not have any objection for the proposal mooted through the impugned proceedings. In case, the petitioner had encroached into any land owned by the Corporation, the latter has every right to remove it, duly following the procedure prescribed by law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however directed that no portion of the land owned by the petitioner shall be taken over by the Corporation except by following the procedure prescribed by law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 31.05.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1935 of 2007 Date: 31.05.2010 JSU