HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.710 of 2010 Date: February 09, 2010 Between: R.M. Bhishma, aged about 75 years, Occ: retired from service, R/o. Flat No.203, SMR Vinay Signature, Mettuguda, Secunderabad, and two others … Petitioners And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, and two others … Respondents Order: Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel, learned Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 and 2 respectively and also Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the first respondent in not passing any orders on the representation dated 31-12-2009, said to have been submitted by the petitioners, claiming 26% out of the total compensation payable for acquiring land for the purpose of road widening in the premises bearing H.No.12-7-275, Padmakshi Apartment, Mettuguda, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners, 3 in number, who are brothers, constructed an apartment complex, by name Padmakshi Apartment, consisting of 16 flats in an extent of 988 square yards of land and transferred 731 square yards of undivided extent of land from out of 988 square yards, to the purchasers of the said flats, and retained about 257 square yards of land. From the apartment complex in question, an extent of 147.08 square yards of land was acquired for the purpose of road widening. When the third respondent- Society had claimed entire compensation, petitioners submitted representation dated 31-12-2009 to the first respondent stating that they are entitled for payment of 26% out of the total compensation payable on account of acquisition of land for the purpose of road widening. This court, at the state of admission, by order dated 27-01- 2010, while issuing notice, directed respondents 1 and 2 not to disburse the compensation amount pending further orders and also permitted learned counsel for petitioners to send personal notice to respondent No.3. In response thereto, though counter affidavit is not filed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Society placed before this court a copy of the letter, dated 07-02-2010, addressed to him by the Secretary of the third respondent-Society, expressing no-objection for payment of 26% out of the total compensation to the landowners/petitioners herein. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the said letter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the representation dated 31-12- 2009 of the petitioners in the light of ‘no-objection’ expressed by the third respondent-Society for payment of 26% out of the total compensation payable on account of acquisition of the subject land for the purpose of road widening. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 09, 2010 MRR