JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Reply to the writ petition, on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, stands instituted. Rejoinder thereto, also stands filed, by the petitioner. However, Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, the learned Senior Panel Counsel states that he has instructions not to institute any reply, on behalf of the afore respondent, to the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner, seeks quashing, of, a notice, borne in Annexure P-7, where through, the, petitioner became informed, that, his house No. 88, mauhal Malti Bag, Khasra No. 269, Tehsil Kullu, District Kullu, becoming acquired, for the construction of four lane/double lane, by the National Highway Authority of India. Therethrough, he was also informed that compensation, qua therewith, in accordance with law, has been assessed, and, also has been remitted into his bank account. 3. The challenge, as made to the afore Annexure P-7, is centered upon the factum, qua in sequel to the construction activity, carried by the National Highway Authority of India, rather the house of the writ petitioner, as unfolded by Annexure P-3, also becoming entailed, with damage(s) (i) and, he further submits that since Annexure P-6,makes revelation(s), vis--vis, the imminent necessity, of, acquisition, of, the house of the writ petitioner, (ii) thereupon, the respondents be directed to, undertake the exercise, of, launching proceedings, for acquisition, of, the house of the writ petitioner, and, also determine compensation qua therewith. 4. The National Highway Authority of India, represented by Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, the learned senior Advocate, in its detailed reply, to the writ petition, make(s) serious reservation(s), therein, vis--vis, the afore projection, by the writ petitioner, in the writ petition, (a) however, respondents No. 4 and 5, in the reply, make(s) disclosure(s), qua there being a necessity, for acquiring the house, of, the writ petitioner, as it falls within the ROW/alignment, hence appertaining to the construction of the afore lane/highway, as, becomes, undertaken by corespondents No. 2 and 3. 5. 5. Be that as it may, co-respondents No. 2 and 3, are alone the befitting authorities, to adjudge, the necessity, of, acquisition, of the house, of, the writ petitioner, (i) and no mandamus can be issued upon the afore co-respondents, to acquire the house, of, the writ petitioner, even if, as disclosed in the reply, to the writ petitioner, instituted by co-respondents No. 4 and 5, it occurs within the road alignment(s), of, the road project, undertaken by respondents No. 2 and 3, (ii) as thereupon this Court would, through its exercising the power, of, judicial review, make an untenable mandamus, upon the afore co-respondents, to launch proceedings, for acquiring the house, of, the writ petitioner, even when there, is, a clear categorical spelling in the reply, furnished to the writ petition, by co-respondents No. 2 and 3, vis-a-vis, their being no necessity, for acquisition, of, the house of the writ petitioner, (iii) and despite the afore respondents being the solitary policy decision makers, vis--vis, feasibility, of, acquisition thereof, and, without any endeavor, of, the writ court, to, judicially review, the, making, of, an apposite un-interferable policy decision. In sequel, this Court, becomes constrained, not to make the afore mandamus, upon co-respondents No. 2 and 3, dehors respondents No. 4 and 5, making the afore projection(s), in their reply, meted to the writ petition. 6. Even otherwise, since the respondents, has canvassed relief No. 3, and reading thereof, unfolds, vis--vis, respondents being injuncted to, demolish or dismantle, the acquired structure, rather at their own expense(s), and, in the afore endeavor, being made, by the respondent concerned, theirs obviating any happening(s), of, damages to the remaining portion, of, the house, of, the writ petitioner. 6. Even otherwise, since the respondents, has canvassed relief No. 3, and reading thereof, unfolds, vis--vis, respondents being injuncted to, demolish or dismantle, the acquired structure, rather at their own expense(s), and, in the afore endeavor, being made, by the respondent concerned, theirs obviating any happening(s), of, damages to the remaining portion, of, the house, of, the writ petitioner. Since, corespondents No. 4 and 5, who are executing the relevant project(s), through, theirs instituted reply/affidavit, make projections therein, vis--vis, theirs making the apposite demolition(s), and, dismantling(s), of, the acquired structures, only after ensuring that hence no damage, becoming caused to the remaining portion, of, the writ petitioners house, (i) thereupon, the writ petitioner, appears, to inaptly, rely upon the stances made by respondents No, 4 and 5, to seek an inapt mandamus, becoming pronounced upon the respondents No 2 and 3, to launch acquisition proceedings, vis--vis, the un-acquired portion(s), of, the relevant house, and also merely upon (ii) his making projection(s) that since damage has been caused thereto, as purportedly apparent, on a perusal of Annexure P-5, hence there is also a further necessity, of, acquiring the afore house, projection(s) whereof, for the afore reasons, has been construed to be un-tenably made, before this Court. 7. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, before this Court, that the damage caused to the un-acquired portion, of, the house, of the writ petitioner, rather being a sequel of the construction activity carried out, by respondents No. 2 and 3, (i) yet the afore also does not, coax this Court, to, mete credence thereto, nor this Court would be constrained to order, for, launching acquisition proceedings, qua therewith, (ii) as thereupon this Court, would be, without any firmest evidence, hence linking the damage caused to the lintel, of, the house of the writ petitioner, to, road construction activity undertaken by, the respondent(s) concerned, hence untenably construing, vis--vis, damage to the lintel of the un-acquired house, of, the writ petitioner, being a sequel, of, construction activity, undertaken by respondents No. 2 and 3.Emphatically, also the afore disputed question, of, fact, hence is amenable, for redressal, through the writ petitioner, recoursing the remedy, of filing a civil suit, before the Civil Court concerned. 8. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.