IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14805 of 2010 Between: P. Praneetha Reddy & another. … Petitioners And The Special Collector, Land Acquisition Division, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri K.V. Subba Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14805 of 2010 ORDER:- A part of the extent of Ac.2.05 guntas notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for laying pipeline by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, “the Board”) under Moulana Abul Kalam Sujala Sravanthi is owned by the petitioners. Enquiry held under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. In the representation made to respondent No.2, with a copy marked to the Managing Director of the Board, the petitioners have categorically undertaken that they have no objection for laying the pipeline through their land without acquiring the same and that they will not cause any obstruction for its future maintenance or they will not do such acts that will cause damage directly or indirectly to the pipeline. As the respondents have not dropped further proceedings despite the said undertaking, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that 30 meter width is required for laying and maintaining the pipeline. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as undertaken by his clients, they will not object to the laying of the pipeline or its maintenance. Inasmuch as the petitioners have agreed not to claim compensation and permit the Board to lay the pipeline and maintain the same without any interference and that they will not do any act, which would damage the pipeline, I do not find any justification for the respondents to go ahead with the proposed acquisition. By dropping further proposals, public exchequer will be saved without interference with the right of the Board to lay and maintain the pipeline. The purpose for which the proposed acquisition was sought to be served will thus be fulfilled even without acquisition. In this view of the matter, the further proceedings are quashed, subject to the following terms. 1) As undertaken by them, the petitioners shall not interfere with the laying and maintaining of the pipeline to the extent of 30 meter width. 2) The petitioners shall not indulge in any act, which is likely to damage the pipeline, and 3) The petitioners shall not sell any part of the land of 30 meter width, which is being utilised for laying the pipeline and its maintenance for the present and also in future, if such need arises or encumber the same in any manner to the third parties. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.18652 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.11.2011 ES