IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3293 of 2009 Between: G. Susheela W/o. G. lakshma Reddy R/o. H.No. 9-1-43/10, Langarhouse, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Office at Tank Bund Road, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner of M.C.H Circle V, M.C.H. Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an writ order or direction more particularly writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate procedure of law more particularly Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of petitioner property bearing M.No. bearing NO. 9-1-365/1, Langarhouse, Hyderabad before acquiring the land to be effected in Road Widening Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.DANANJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she is the owner of the premises bearing No.9-1-365/1 admeasuring 868 sq. yards of land situated at Langarhouse, Hyderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1983, and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of it, and now her grievance is that the respondents, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, are taking steps to demolish the structures in her premises for the purpose of widening the road and threatening to dispossess her from the premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not at all against the road-widening programme proposed by the respondents nor has she any objection to the acquisition of her land, however, he submits that the respondents have to follow due procedure under law or initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before demolishing the structures. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents would certainly follow the due procedure of law before any action to demolish the structures is to be taken. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondents would certainly follow the due process under law before taking steps to demolish the structures, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondents are directed not to demolish the structures or take away any portion of the petitioner’s property and not to dispossess her from the premises without following due process of law or initiating Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj