THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20488 OF 2005 DATED:19.9.2005 Between: Abhish Kumar and another …Petitioners And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20488 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of premises bearing No.7-2-1813, Erragadda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) served a notice dt.25.6.2005 informing the petitioners that an extent of 319.58 Sq.yards of their premises would be affected by the widening of existing road from S.R.Nagar Junction to Erragadda Junction to 150’.00’’ wide road. The petitioners were requested to extend cooperation and consent to handover advance possession of the area in the widening project. MCH also informed that petitioners would be allowed to benefit of concessions in G.O.Ms.No.483, dt.24.8.1998. The petitioners state that they are not willing to give their consent and that any action on the part of MCH without due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be illegal Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) sought consent of the owner for advance possession in larger public interest. It does not, however, mean that in the event of owner of the property not willing to give consent the respondent MCH would resort to high-handed action. In such case, the MCH has to necessarily resort to provisions of Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). In Srichand Rohra v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad while dealing with similar matter, this Court made the following observations. A reading of the said letter does not in any way indicate that there is any truth in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. What was sought to by issuing such letter is, a request was made to the landlords to give consent to handover advanced possession in the larger public interest. It was clearly informed that MCH will pay compensation to the effected structures as per the Rules and extent all benefits as per the Rules. If landlord desires to avail the benefits to be extended by the MCH on his own volition the landlord may give consent. If the landlord is not willing the letter nowhere compels one to part with the land for widening the road in which event as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel the MCH will have to resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Standing Counsel for MCH has placed before this Court a note file in File No.616/ACP/C5/MCH/2005 wherein the orders were passed to the effect that if the land owner is not agreed under private negotiations, land acquisition proposals will be taken up as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). Therefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived. If the petitioner is not given his consent, it is always open to MCH to initiate action under Section 147 of the Act and acquire the property of the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has allegedly not given his willingness/consent to cooperate with the MCH for the road widening project. Needless to mention that Corporation has to initiate action under the provisions of LA Act. Till then, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to enjoy the property. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.9.2005 bnr