IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11365 of 2009 Between: 1 Mohd. Jaffer S/o. Shaik Madhar R/o. H.No.8-4-393/1/B, Erragadda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. City Planner - 10 (old Circle No.5) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Deputy Colletor Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 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 Notification in proceedings No. B/104/2009, dated 24-02-2009 and consequential proceedings No. G1/967/2009, dated 01-06-2009 passed by the Respondents Under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act and the action in acquiring the House No. 8-4-393/1/B, Situated at Erragadda, Hyderabad, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.A.GAFFAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the notification dated 24.2.2009 and the consequential proceedings dated 1.6.2009 passed by the respondents under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring his house situated at Erragadda, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry and affording him any opportunity, the respondents are taking away his property without paying any compensation. In view of the said allegation, the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the relevant record and accordingly today, the record is placed before the Court. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner himself voluntarily gave a notarized affidavit agreeing to give the land for the purpose of widening the road and also stated that there is no other third party to claim compensation with regard to the said property. It also appears that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 24.3.2009 wherein the petitioner appeared and expressed no objection and thereafter only the impugned proceedings are issued. These facts are not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that until the compensation is determined and paid to him, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the said property. Once the land is acquired, the consequential proceedings will follow. Having participated in the 5-A enquiry and agreeing to hand over his land, the petitioner now cannot say that he shall not be evicted from the acquired place until the compensation is being paid. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents that if the land of the petitioner is acquired for the public purpose, they shall pass an award and pay the compensation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.17.6.2009 msv.