IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3779 of 2008 Between: Smt. Shahzad Begum W/o. Late Shaik Fareed, R/o. H.No.21/3/616, Chelapura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commisioner, having it Office at Lower Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Asst. City Planner, Circle No. 2. Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3 Govt., of A.P., Rep by it Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating the Land Acquisition Proceeding before dispossessing the petitioner from his premises No.19-5-13/1 to 3, situated at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as illegal, void in contravention of Section 147 of H.M.C act and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises without initiating the Land acquisition proceedings and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.ZIA-UL-HAQ Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3779 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not initiating Land Acquisition Proceedings before dispossessing the petitioner from his premises bearing No.19-5-13/1 to 3, situated at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, as illegal and the same is in contravention of Sec.147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) Heard Sri K.Jamali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Kodandarama Rao, learned counsel, representing Smt.Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit and the material available on record shows that the petitioner claims to be the owner of premises bearing No.19-5-13/1 to 3 of Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, that on 14.03.2007 a letter, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, was sent to Shaik Saleem with address mentioned therein as 19-5-13/1/2 of Bahadurpura, wherein a request was made for his consent to give away property bearing No.19-5-13/1/2 to the extent of 13’-12” admeasuring 52.21 sq.yards. The petitioner claims that neither the address of the property nor the name of the owner of the property is correctly mentioned in the said letter. According to the petitioner, her husband purchased the property under a registered sale deed on 11.07.1994 from Smt.Balamma, W/o.Sailoo, and that after his death she succeeded to the said property. The grievance of the petitioner is that without initiating proceedings under Sec.147 of the Act, the respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioner for widening of the road. Sri N.Kodandarama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner and that even the letter/notice filed by the petitioner was given to one Shaik Saleem, with reference to Door No.19-5-13/1/2 and not to 19-5-13/1 to 3. The questions, whether the petitioner is the owner of the property or not and the respondents are seeking to take away the property bearing premises No.19-5-13/1 to 3, fall in the realm of factual dispute. At any rate, the respondents cannot acquire the land of private citizens without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, if the true owner of the property is not willing to part with his property under Sec.146 of the Act. Since the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing premises No.19-5-13/1 to 3 and is apprehending threat of deprivation of her property without following due process of law, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2008. If it is found that the petitioner is owner of the premises, which is sought to be utilized for road widening purpose, the respondents shall not acquire the property of the petitioner without following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 25.02.2008 Dsr