HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28822 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish and acquire the property admeasuring 29.39 sq. yards in premises No.1-7- 154/2, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, for road widening, without acquiring the same by initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Sections 146 and 147 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of 55 sq. yards of land along with old house therein bearing premises No.1-7-154/2, Bakaram, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 12.7.2011 from L. Kishore Chand, who in turn purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 22.9.1977; that the respondents are initiating land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of property for proposed road widening; that the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting to pay the compensation in his name for structures and land, but the respondents failed to do so. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even prior to passing of award, the petitioner purchased the property in question and therefore, the compensation, if any, has to be paid to the petitioner, that the respondents are trying to encroach the land beyond the land mentioned in the notification issued and hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents are going to acquire the extent which is notified in the notification for the purpose of road widening and that the award is passed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner and a cheque has been prepared and therefore, the question of paying the amount to the petitioner does not arise and hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Though it is stated by the petitioner that no notification is issued for acquisition of land for the purpose of road widening, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents, the property is acquired and necessary compensation was awarded and a cheque has already been prepared in the name of the vendor of the petitioner. The said statement is not disputed by the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the award is passed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, the question of payment of compensation for the land acquired to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, for that matter, the respondent corporation has to refer the matter to the civil court for adjudication of title to the property acquired, in view of the fact that the petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the property by way of registered sale deed from the person in favour of whom the cheque has been prepared. Therefore, in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporation would take possession of the land to the extent notified in the notification but not beyond that, the question of giving a direction to the 2nd respondent not to take the possession of the land beyond the land mentioned in the notification does not arise. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to refer the matter to the civil court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, for adjudication of the dispute. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount before the civil court after referring the case. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 29.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28822 OF 2011 Date:29.10.2011 Gk.