THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12687 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be in occupation of two Mulgis bearing Municipal Nos.21-3-871 and 872 situated at Chowk, Kasargatta Mandi Khana, Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent herein is the owner of the said Mulgis and the same have been let out to the petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that the Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein proposed to acquire several extents of land situated in the vicinity including 26.46 sq. yards of land belonging to the 4th respondent for the purpose of road widening with the consent of the owners. It appears that compensation payable to the owners has also been paid. The only grievance of the petitioner herein is that instead of utilizing the said 26.46 sq. yards of land, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were attempting to interfere with the adjacent property in possession of the petitioner herein at the instance of the 4th respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents including the proceedings dated 20.12.2007 issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary and illegal. A perusal of the proceedings dated 20.12.2007 placed before this Court shows that it is a notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") issued by the 1st respondent-Special Deputy Collector, calling upon the respective land owners to appear in person for receiving the compensation to which they are entitled to. So far as the 4th respondent herein is concerned, the said proceedings itself show that an extent of 26.46 sq. yards of land was acquired and compensation was sought to be paid. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under instructions stated that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is utilizing only the said extent of 26.46 sq. yards of land out of the Mulgis bearing Municipal No.21-3- 871 and 872 covered by the proceedings dated 20.12.2007 for the purpose of road widening and they are not interfering with the remaining portion of the property in occupation of the petitioner herein in any manner whatsoever. In the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner herein appears to be without any basis and therefore no further enquiry is necessary. Accordingly, recording the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 3.7.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12687 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Akbar Ali, S/o. late Hakim Ahmed Ali, R/o. 21-3-871, Kasarhatta chowk, Bandikhana, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), 6th Floor, Municipal complex, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep by its Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, 6th Floor, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Juderabad. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Assistant City Planner, Circle No.2 (old), New Circle No.5,Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Mohd. Aleemuddin, S/o. Mohd Fakhruddin, R/o. 20-2- 638/8, Hussaini Alam, 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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice in Proceedings No.A/1267/2007 dated 20.12.2007 issued by the 1st respondent and its consequential proceedings in so far so it relates to SI.No.18 i.e., property bearing No.21-3-871, 872 at Chowk, Kasargatta, mandi Khana, Hyderabad, and also in acquiring the entire land of the said tow Mulgis at the behest of the 4th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, withuot jurisdiction, contrary to the principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the 1st to 3rd respondents not to demolish the entire land of the subject Mulgis contrary to the said notification and to acquire the same only after following the due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ALI FAROOQUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Mr. R. Radhakrishna Reddy (SC for Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) The Court made the following: