IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10904 of 2009 Between: 1 Ali Bin Omer Yafai, S/o. late Omer Bin Younus Yafai,, R/o. 8-4-412/2, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd. Sayed Khan, S/o. late Sher Dil Khan, R/o. 8-4-489, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 3 Ansar Ahmed, S/o. Abdul Azeez, R/o. 8-4-491, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 4 Syed Khaleel, S/o. Syed Ahmed, R/o. 8-4-393/14, Erragadda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Lower, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Chief City Planner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Sri G.Balraj, R/o. 8-4-394, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 4 Sri G.Mohanlal, R/o. 8-4-395, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Natho Bai, R/o. 8-4-393, 397 and 398, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 6 Sri Ramakrishna Agarwal, R/o. 8-4-392, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 7 Sri Md. Sharief, R/o. 8-3-393/B/1, Erragadda, 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 any Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 and 2 in not adhering to the road widening programme by taking possession of the land of 75 ft. from the mid point of the road on either side of from S.R.Nagar Junction to Erragadda junction, i.e, the extents belongs to the respondents 3 to 7 bearing Door Nos. 8-4-394, 8-4-395, 8-4-393, 8-4-397 and 8-4-398, 8-4-392 and 8-4-393/B/1, Erragadda, Hyderabad, as mentioned in the plan attached to the notice vide Lr.No.75/ACP/C5/MCH/05/20, 19, 21 dt. 25/6/2006 issued to the respondents 3 to 7 as being illeal, arbitrary and violtive of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to make any constructions or utilize the demolished and acquired property bearing Door Nos 8-4-394, 8-4-395, 8-4-393, 8-4-397 and 8-4-398, 8-4-392 and 8-4-393/B/1, Erragadda, Hyderabad, which is subject matter of acquisition, other that the road widening purposes, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10904 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Erragadda. It is stated that the 1st respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation - having proposed widening of the road from S.R. Nagar Junction to Erragadda Junction by making it 150 feet wide, issued notice to the respondents 3 to 7 herein for acquiring the land required for road- widening. It is alleged by the petitioners that though as per the proposals made by the Corporation 75 feet has to be acquired on both sides of the road i.e., 75 feet from the Western side and 75 feet from the Eastern side, the Corporation failed to follow the same and the road has not been widened upto 75 feet on both sides. It is contended that if the road was widened up to 75 feet from the mid point of the road as proposed by the Corporation, the wall situated between the property of the petitioners and the property that was already demolished should have been demolished and even the petitioner’s property to an extent of one foot should have been acquired. It is alleged that the officials of the respondent Corporation had connived with the respondents 3 to 7 herein and allowed them to put up shutters by encroaching upon the open place adjacent to the wall. It is contended that having proposed to widen the road to an extent of 75 feet from the mid point of the road on both sides the Corporation is bound to adhere to the same and they cannot acquire more or less than the original proposal. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not adhering to the road-widening programme by taking possession of the land of 75 feet from the mid point of the road on either side is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that the Corporation has taken up the road-widening from S.R. Nagar Junction to Erragadda Junction proposing 150 feet wide road as per the Road Development Plan. Accordingly, notices were served with regard to the affected portions for giving advance possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by paying structural and land compensation. So far as the writ petitioners are concerned, it is stated that the they are the residents of rear side of the affected properties on the S.R. Nagar to Erragadda road and that they wanted to have direct access to the proposed 150 feet wide road. For the said purpose, they have been demanding demolition of the left over property. However, the same was found to be not necessary for the purpose of road-widening. Heard both sides. Having regard to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is clear that the land required for the purpose of road- widening was already acquired and the structures were demolished. As could be seen, the specific case of the Corporation is that the land belonging to the writ petitioners is not required for the purpose of road- widening and therefore there is no need for demolition of the wall in question. The petitioners neither filed a Reply affidavit nor any other material could be produced contradicting the version of the Corporation. In the circumstances, no Mandamus can be issued compelling the Corporation to acquire the land in possession of the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 10-07-2009 gbs