IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26193 of 2005 Between: P. Prabhunath, S/o late P. Pandit Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Uppal Municiality, represented by its Commissioner, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Uppeal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Questioning the action of the first respondent in taking possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas in Survey No.10 of Ramanthpur village, Hyderabad, Rangareddy District, by demolishing the butty situated therein, for the purpose of road widening, the present writ petition has been filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land measuring Ac.2.20 guntas in Survey No.10 of Ramanthapur village, Hyderabad, which was inherited from his father and his father got the said property out of a partition arrived at between his father and his uncle in a partition decree in O.S.No.78 of 1969 dated 22.09.1969 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and this particular piece of land fell to the share of his father. The officials of the first respondent came to the said land on 3.12.2005 and started taking measurements for the purpose of road widening, for which he objected the same. But, the officials of the first respondent are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without following any due process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, the first respondent is trying to acquire the land of the petitioner and as such, the action of the first respondent is wholly illegal. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view, if the first respondent intends to acquire the land from a private individual for the purpose of road widening, it is open for him, before acquiring the said land, he would issue notice to the said individual specifying the reasons for road widening purpose. But, in the instant case, the first respondent without issuing any notice, trying to acquire the land of the petitioner. Therefore, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the first respondent cannot acquire the land of the petitioner. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ (V. ESWARAIAH, J) Date: 07.12.2005 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B.O. Ksn