IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25925 of 2000 Between: 1 S. Dildar Ali S/o. Tumab Ali, R/o.H.No.2-63/2, Mallapur (Village), Uppal(Mandal), Ranga Reddy (District). 2 Abidunnisa Begum W/o. Mohd. Axam, R/o.H.No.2-63/1, Mallapur (village), Uppal (Mandal), Ranga Reddy (District) ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Muncipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy (District), at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Muncipality (KAPRA), Uppal (Mandal), Ranga Reddy (District) .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1& 2 herein to pay compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act forthwith to the petitioners for the structures and land out of the premises No.2-63/1, 2-63/2, situated at Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, taken possession by the respondents for widening the existing road leading from Habsiguda to E.C.I.L.,via Mallapur and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. FOR R GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FOR R R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25925 of 2000 O R D E R : The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of Plot No.30 and Plot No.2 situated in Sy.Nos.141 and 143 of Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District, having purchased the same from one Venkata Rama Rao in the year 1991. It is stated that they constructed houses in the said plots and they were allotted Municipal Nos.2-63/1 and 2-63/2 by the Kapra Municipality. While so, there was a proposal to widen the main road leading from Habsiguda to ECIL via Mallapur abutting the houses of the petitioners and in that process the compound walls around the houses of the petitioners were demolished by the staff of the 2nd respondent on 14.11.2000 without any prior notice or intimation. That apart, 120 sq. yards from the plot of the 2nd petitioner and 150 sq. yards from the plot of the 1st petitioner were also taken possession for the purpose of the said road widening. In spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioners, the respondents have not paid any compensation. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forthwith for the structures and the land acquired from the petitioners’ premises for the purpose of road widening. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent – Commissioner of Kapra Municipality – alleging that there was no approved layout for the locality in which the petitioners plots were situated and that the petitioners had constructed their buildings without obtaining any valid permission from the Municipality. It is further stated that for the purpose of 100 feet ZDP Road some land in Sy.Nos.141 and 143 of Mallapur Village was utilized, however the same was a surplus land declared under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The plea of the petitioners that their houses were abutting the main road leading from Habsiguda to ECIL was specifically denied and it is stated that the said houses were situated on the land leading from Shiva Hotel to Mallapur village and the said buildings were opposite to one another. It is further stated that the Municipality had not touched any of the properties of the petitioner and the alleged demolition of the compound wall of the petitioners on 14.11.2000 was incorrect. Thus, it is pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation as claimed by them. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent – District Collector – on the same lines and reiterating that no road widening programme was taken up over the properties in question. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the pleadings narrated above, whereas the petitioners claimed that the land out of their house properties was utilized for the formation of widening of the road, the said plea has been specifically denied by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners while disputing the stand taken by the respondents, relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.23200 of 2000, dated 24.07.2003 filed by the vendor of the petitioners herein namely Venkat Rama Rao seeking a direction not to demolish or dispossess the petitioners therein from their houses and open plots situated in Sy.Nos.140, 141 and 143 of Mallapur Village. It is contended by the learned counsel that the houses of the petitioners are also situated in the very same locality i.e., Sy.Nos.141 and 143. In W.P.No.23200 of 2000, it was conceded by the respondents that the land claimed by the petitioners therein was utilized for the purpose of road widening and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners therein were paid compensation. However, in the case on hand, it is contended by the respondents that the houses of the petitioners were not affected in any manner whatsoever. May be that the plots claimed by the petitioners herein are also situated on the very same locality i.e., Sy.Nos.141 and 143 of Mallapur Village. However, on that ground it cannot be concluded that the said land was also utilized for the purpose of road widening. In view of the categorical denial by the respondents in their counter-affidavits, it is for the petitioners to produce the necessary evidence to establish their plea that their properties were affected for the purpose of road widening. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and consequently there cannot be any direction to the respondents to pay the compensation as sought by the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is grated to the petitioners to work out the appropriate common law remedy as available under law for redressal of their grievance. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 04-02-2009 gbs