IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3660 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Ahsan Khan S/o. Late Md. Omer Khan Occ: Business, Having Shop at 4-1-709, Mozam Jahi Market, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Circle IV, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The A.P. State Wakf Board rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hajj House, Opp. Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in trying to demolish shop bearing municipal door No.4-1-709 situated at Mozam Jahi Market notified and published in the Gazette dt. 19.07.1984 as Wakf Property known as Tavela Safar Khan, without following the procedure contemplated under section 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act of 1955 read with section 91 of the Wakf Act of 1995 as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: MR. R. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. ABDUL NAZEEB KHAN, (SC FOR A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3660 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Sri Abdul Nazeeb Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Wakf Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that a notified Wakf Institution namely ‘Tavela Safar Khan’ situated at Mozam Jahi Market has certain shop rooms bearing Nos.4-1-708 to 711 and that the 1st respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has proposed to widen the existing road from Puthlibowli to Mozam Jahi Market and in that process, the aforementioned shop rooms are sought to be demolished. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is insisting upon the consent of the parties for this compulsory acquisition, without offering them any compensation much less a reasonable amount, and is going ahead with the demolition of the structures. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that if the consent is not issued by any party to voluntarily part with possession of the property in question, the respondent Municipal Corporation cannot take away such a property without resort being made to the acquisition of such property as per the provisions contained in Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. The apprehension of the petitioner is that since the procedure contemplated in Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act provides for determination of the market value to be paid as compensation and since the market value of prime property situate in commercial localities of the city is too high, the Corporation is resorting to short-circuiting the procedure prescribed. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation would assert that, at the first instance, the Corporation would solicit consent of the parties concerned and, in return, certain concessions in the form of allowing additional F.S.I. for the constructions to be made by such parties are offered. That system is adopted for the purpose of protecting the interests of both parties. If a party is not interested in accepting such terms, the Corporation is invariably resorting to the procedure prescribed under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or the Land Acquisition Act and, without taking recourse to such provisions of law, they are not dispossessing the citizens of their valuable property. Learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Wakf Board, Sri Abdul Nazeeb Khan, points out that since the property in question in this case is a registered Wakf property, it is the State Wakf Board which is entitled to receive the compensation amount and no other person other than the A.P. State Wakf Board is entitled to be paid any such compensation irrespective of his position as a Mutawalli or as a tenant or Managing Committee of such Wakf property. He, therefore, suggests that the Municipal Corporation or the Collector, under the Land Acquisition Act, shall invariably put the A.P. State Wakf Board on notice and provide an opportunity for the State Wakf Board not only to participate in any enquiry contemplated in that regard, but also enable it to establish and receive the true and correct market value of the property, which is proposed to be acquired. It is hardly debatable, at this stage, that a citizen can be deprived of his right to hold property without being compensated therefor. If a party does not give his consent and he is not willing to receive the additional benefits, which the Corporation offers for such voluntary donation of immovable properties for road widening purposes, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has to necessarily take recourse to the procedure prescribed for acquisition of such property, as contemplated under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, or in the alternative, take recourse to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also relevant to point out that it is the A.P. State Wakf Board, which is liable to be paid compensation, and not any other person who may be in actual possession of such property. Therefore, the 1st respondent- Municipal Corporation would put the A.P. State Wakf Board on notice and then proceed further in the matter by providing an opportunity to participate in the enquiry that follows later on. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) 30th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Circle IV, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hajj House, Opp. Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 Two CD Copies