THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2686 AND 4888 OF 2007 DATED: 04.11.2009 W.P.No.2686 of 2007: Between: Vulli Prasada Rao and others. .. Petitioners. And The State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Department of Road & Buildings Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. W.P.No.4888 of 2007: Between: H.Uma and others. .. Petitioners. And The State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Department of Road & Buildings Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners claim to be the owners of their buildings/shops situated at M.G.Road, Vizianagaram, and have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties since a long time. While so, pursuant to the request made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, seeking sanction for widening the road, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.291 MA, dated 28.07.2004, for widening the road from existing 45 feet to 60 feet, for which the petitioners gave their consent. It appears, the widening of the road was proposed to be taken up in three phases i.e., in the first phase, from Three Lanterns to Clock Tower, in the second phase, from Clock Tower to Kanyakaparameswari Temple and in the third phase, from Kanyakaparameswari Temple to State Bank of India, and the shops of the petitioners would be affected in the second phase. It is the case of the petitioners that, as per their consent, they have voluntarily removed that portion of structures of their buildings/shops needed to be removed for widening the existing road upto 60 feet, and made renovation to their buildings/shops without taking any compensation from the respondent authorities. The petitioners complain that subsequent to their voluntary removal of the portion of their structures, surprisingly, the 1st respondent sought to demolish their buildings to the extent of 80 feet road i.e., 20 feet in addition to the original consent agreement, and such action of demolition is being proposed only in the second phase, and, therefore, they seek appropriate directions in these writ petitions. The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter affidavits in both these writ petitions stating that the Municipality has decided to widen the road upto 80 feet from Clock Tower junction to Kanyakaparameswari temple, as per Council resolution No.294, dated 23.01.2007, and also initiated steps for payment of structure compensation decided by the Roads and Buildings Department to the affected building owners, as per the said Council Resolution and provision of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and Rules in force. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, if the respondents are intending to widen the road upto 80 feet, the petitioners should be paid compensation for the structures that would be lost and also the structures voluntarily removed by them in the process of widening the road upto 60 feet, which was sought earlier. The said aspect of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be gone into in these writ petitions. However, the petitioners are entitled to agitate the said aspect before the authorities concerned as and when the acquisition proceedings either under the Municipality Act or the Land Acquisition Act, are initiated by the respondents pertaining to the structures of the buildings/shops of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No.3 in his counter affidavit, the respondents are directed not to evict the petitioners from their buildings/shops unless and until the acquisition proceedings, as required under the law, are initiated and completed pertaining to the structures of the buildings/shops of the petitioners, and also the compensation is paid to the petitioners. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 04.11.2009 v v