ORDER : 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are either residing in the properties abutting the road or conducting business in the properties abutting the road. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, aggrieved by the proposed action of the 3 rd respondent in taking up road widening from the existing 40 to 60 feet on Tenali road of Mangalagiri town. It is submitted that the petitioners apprehend pressure from the 3 rd respondent to yield to the demand of the 3 rd respondent to accept TDR bonds as the only solution for acquiring the petitioners’ property. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are all small traders and, apart from the properties over which they are residing, they have no other property or means of livelihood. It is submitted that the petitioners are now exposed to the demands of the 3 rd respondent and that the 3 rd respondent, without issuing any notice, has resorted to marking the petitioners’ properties for the purpose of road widening. In that regard, whenever the petitioners approached the 3 rd respondent, they were orally informed to accept the TDR bonds offered by the 3 rd respondent in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 28.03.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners are not willing to accept the TDR bonds, as the same is not commensurate alternative to the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also submitted that the petitioners would not be adequately compensated in the event the respondent authorities do not follow the Act 30 of 2013. 3. The 3 rd respondent has filed a detailed counter along with the Council Resolution and newspaper clippings relating to the proposed road widening. It is submitted in the counter that the 3 rd respondent is in the process of implementing the zonal development plans and that, keeping in view the changed circumstances in the Tadepalli Municipality, the requirement of widening the road from 40 feet to 60 feet was considered essential about 20 years ago. However, the same could not materialize on account of various reasons. It is also submitted that the services of RITES were engaged for conducting a Comprehensive Mobility Plan for the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation area and that a proposal to widen the road from existing two lanes to four lanes were also submitted. 4. However, the same could not materialize on account of various reasons. It is also submitted that the services of RITES were engaged for conducting a Comprehensive Mobility Plan for the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation area and that a proposal to widen the road from existing two lanes to four lanes were also submitted. 4. It is submitted that the Zonal Development Plan has to match the phase of development and traffic and, as such, the respondents have to essentially widen the existing road. It is further submitted that the 3 rd respondent shall follow the applicable provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, i.e., Sections 146 and 147 of the A.P. Municipal Act, 1955 and A.P. Building Rules, 2017, for arriving at compensation for the land acquired for road widening. It is also stated in the counter that meetings were conducted with the property owners, whose properties were affected by the road widening and that some of the property owners gave their consent by accepting TDR certificates. It is submitted that the writ petitions have been filed on mere apprehension, without issuance of any notice, and that no cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to file the present writ petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. 6. Perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the 3 rd respondent is in the process of widening the road from the existing 40 feet to 60 feet, as per the Zonal Development Plan notified vide G.O.Ms.No.687, MA, dated 30.12.2006. It is also evident that the petitioners’ properties are likely to be affected in the road widening process. As stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent, some of the property owners have expressed their consent to accept the TDR bonds and that the 3 rd respondent would also negotiate with the petitioners for offering TDR bonds in lien of their properties. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have never expressed their consent for accepting TDR bonds and that they have personally visited the office of the 3 rd respondent and requested the Commissioner to consider their cases for grant of compensation under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The claims of the petitioners were not considered and that they were instead called upon to attend a proposed meeting for negotiation. The procedure contemplated Section 146 of the Municipal Corporation Act, deals with the acquisition of immovable property by agreement. Section 147 prescribes the procedure, when immovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. 9. The petitioners, if they are not accepting for the TDR bonds offered by the 3 rd respondent, the only option left for the 3 rd respondent would be to invoke the procedure contemplated under Section 147 of Municipal Corporation Act and the properties of the petitioners would have to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The only option for the respondents would be to follow the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 10. Considering the same, the writ petitions are disposed off, making it clear to the 3 rd respondent that, if any of the petitioners submit in writing their dissent to accepting the TDR bonds offered, the respondents shall necessarily follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 11. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.