THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7563 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be the joint owner, along with his three brothers, of the property bearing No.9-1-962, Aseelmetta junction, Visakhapatnam having acquired it under registered exchange deed dated 14.05.1993 vide document No.1244/1993. It is his case that the building in question was constructed by their vendor in 1977 under a sanctioned plan, it is encircled by a compound wall, and that they are using the building for running marble business under the name and style of “Bombay Marble & Cuddapah Slab Works, and Stones Arts”. While matters stood thus, officials of the respondent Corporation are said to have made markings on the petitioner’s property and to have informed them that these markings were made for the purpose of taking measurements for future road widening. The petitioner would further submit that, on 03.04.2010, officials of the respondent corporation again took measurements of the land, and orally informed the petitioner that their property, to an extent of 10 feet 6 inches in length and 64 feet 4 inches in width, would be acquired towards road widening; that, in future, they were going to construct a Bus & Rail Transit System (BRTS) in the centre of the road; and the road in front of their building needed to be widened. It is the petitioner’s case that the procedure contemplated under Sections 145 to 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (HMC) Act, 1955, as extended to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, has not been adhered to, and that he was being illegally deprived of his property without authority of law. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, would submit that the petitioner’s apprehension of his being dispossessed of the property in question is without basis and that the corporation would, before widening the road, initiate proceedings under Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Recording this submission of the Learned Standing Counsel the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner of the property in question, except in accordance with Sections 146 and 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as extended to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 06.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue copy in three days. B/o MRKR