IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6183 of 2009 Between: C.Pandurangam S/o.Late C.Nagaiah R/o.16-1-73-77, Pusal Basthi,Saidabad Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Town Planning Officer, circle No.1 Sardar Mahal, Charminar,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 to issue an appropriate writ order or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the petitioner shops to an extent of 85.38 sq.yards out of total extent of 129 sq.yards in Municipal No.16-1-571 to 573 situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad without any notice and due process of law and in violation of ARticles, 14,19(1)(g) ,21 and 300A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish petitioner shops to an extent of 85.38 sq.yards out of total extent of 129.sq.yards in Municipal No.16-1 571 to 573 situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.SUNIL GAWASANE Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent- Corporation, without issuing any notice and without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act), is trying to acquire the land admeasuring 85.38 Sq. yards by demolishing his shops bearing No.16-1-571 to 573 constructed in that land situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad, for the purpose of widening the road. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has submitted that the respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioner so far with regard to the proposal of demolition of certain portion of the petitioner’s shops, and in case the respondents require any portion of the land or shops of the petitioner for the purpose of widening the road, they shall certainly issue notice to the petitioner and initiate proceedings under the Act, and would pay suitable compensation, before taking action to demolish the shops and acquiring the land, for widening the road. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and follow due process under law before they take action to demolish her shops and acquire the land for the purpose of widening the road”. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 25th March, 2009 bcj