THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21471 OF 2003 Dated 26th November, 2009 Between: Baikar Mangaraju ….Petitioner And The Collector, Vizianagaram and Two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Lakshmi Kanth For Sri P.R.Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1 :G.P.for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 :Sri T.Bheemanna for Sri S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to transfer the land admeasuring 57 square feet in T.S.No.994 situated adjacent to the west of the petitioner’s building in Rangireeju Street of Vizianagaram Municipality or in the alternative to direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner and acquired by respondent No.3 for road widening purpose. The petitioner is the owner of the 80 square feet of site in T.S.No.1014 of the above mentioned street, which was utilised by respondent No.3 for road widening purpose without initiating land acquisition proceedings. Obviously at the instance of the petitioner, respondent No.3-Municipality has taken a decision to transfer 57 square feet of land belonging to the Municipality and situated in T.S.No.994 to the petitioner in lieu of the land of the petitioner utilised for road widening. A resolution to that effect appeared to have been passed by respondent No.2-Municipal Council. Proposals were, therefore, placed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1 for approving such transfer. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 10.07.1988, whereby the said proposal was approved subject to the following conditions. 1) “No permanent construction above 6’ shall be allowed in the proposed transferred land. 2) The drainage canal should not be closed which is in the proposed transferred land. 3) No encroachment on the road.” The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the above mentioned proceedings of respondent No.1, no steps were taken by respondents 2 and 3 to effectuate transfer of land. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. At the hearing, while there has been no representation for respondent No.1, the learned counsel representing respondents 2 and 3 reported no instructions. As the material filed by the petitioner referred to above clearly shows that respondent No.2 passed a resolution for transfer of 57 square feet in T.S.No.994 in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the land taken over from the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2 for road widening and the said resolution was approved by respondent No.1 as far back as 10.07.1988, the respondents are bound to implement the said decision. However, in view of lapse of substantial time, if the respondents find that the above mentioned decision cannot be implemented at this length of time, the respondents shall initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 68 square feet of land in T.S.No.1014, which was stated to be utilised for road widening by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th November, 2009 vrn