IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 26370 of 2008 Between: Mrs. Shareefa Begum W/o. Late Mohd. Khaja, R/o. 23-1-1119/5, Moghulpura, Charminar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector Hyderabad Dist. 3 The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. O/o. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Spl. Officer & Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tankbund Road, 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 to issue an order, direction or writ, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents in demolishing or dispossessing the petitioner from the premises bearing Nos.23-1-1119, 23-1-1119/1 to 6, 23-1- 1119/5/1 and 5/2 at Panch Mohallah, Moghalpura, Hyderabad constructed in the land admeasuring 341.44 square yards, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession in respect of the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, without her land and building being included in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short – ‘the Act’), she was sought to be dispossessed therefrom and that, as a preliminary step, the respondents had visited her abode to take measurements. Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent, on instructions, would state that the petitioner’s land and building is not included in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and that before acquiring the said land and building, either in its entirety or a portion thereof, the respondent would adhere to the provisions of the Act, and till then they would not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the property in question. In view of the submission of the learned standing counsel for 4th respondent, the petitioner’s apprehension no longer necessitates adjudication and the writ petition stands disposed of making the submission of the learned standing counsel part of the record. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd December 2008 CVRK