IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2009 Dt.03.12.2009 Between: Mohd. Mouzam Ali … Appellant And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (now referred to as Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) represented by its Commissioner-cum-Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2009 JUDGMENT (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) In this Writ Appeal, the appellant felt aggrieved by order dt.21.11.2008 in Writ Petition No.2683 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. This case has got a chequerred history. A part of the petitioner’s property along with a portion of the building was taken over by the respondents for the purpose of road widening. This Court in W.P. No.16953 of 2001 filed by the appellant directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without acquiring the property. Later on, the respondents paid compensation to the appellant for the structure. However, in lieu of payment of compensation for the land, the appellant was allotted an alternative site at a place called Chaderghat by proceedings dt.18.2.2002. As the possession was not handedover to the appellant, he filed Writ Petition No.25084 of 2002. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to register the property. However, by order dt.7.7.2004 the said order was modified to the effect that if registration of the property was not possible, compensation should be paid to the appellant by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The appellant again filed Writ Petition No.2683 of 2006 for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot the alternative property in lieu of payment of compensation. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it was stated that the properties, which the appellant indicated, were not available for being allotted and therefore the respondents are prepared to acquire the land. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition under the impugned order by directing the respondents to complete the Award enquiry for payment of compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. At the hearing, Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) was not sincere enough in exploring the possibility of allotting an alternative site. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, submitted that no alternative property is available for allotment and therefore the respondents have resorted to acquiring the property under the provisions of the Act. In our considered opinion, the appellant does not have any legal right for allotment of an alternative property in lieu of payment of compensation. The facts referred to above suggest that though at one time allotment of alternative property was made, it was found not possible to register the said property. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation under the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly directed the respondents to pass Award. It is now stated that an Award has been passed and that as the said Award was stated to be an ex parte one, the appellant is proposing to challenge the same. On the above facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, because the respondents have already acquired the property in accordance with law. If the appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, it is needless to observe, he is entitled to avail appropriate remedies under the provisions of the Act for enhancement of compensation. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.12.2009 bnr