IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 15161 of 2000 Between: Smt. S.Padmini W/o. DR.S.Naga Raj, M.D. R/o. H.No. 44/133-A, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep. by Commissioner M.C.H.Building Lower Tank Bund Road Hyderabad 2 The City Planner Circle V, of Town Planning Section Khairatbad Hyderabad 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Secretary, Municipal Administration Secretariat Hyderabad .....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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direciton in the nature of Writ directing the respondents to initiate appropriate procedure of law more particularly Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of Petitioners house properties bearing No.6-3- 883/7, Panjagutta Cross Roads, Hyderabad declaring the Proceedings Letter No. 7/RW/ACP/C5/W6/2000 dated 27-6-2000 and Letter No. 8/RW/ACP/C5/W6/2000 dated 27-6-2000 issued to Sunil Gupta and Susheel Runta Respectively as illegal, arbitrary and descriminatory in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: None appears on either side. It is the case of the petitioner that she and her husband are the owners of the ground floor of the building bearing No.6-3-883/7 constructed on an area of 300 square yards, at Panjagutta Cross Roads, Hyderabad. While so, the first respondent-Corporation issued a notice No.12/ACP/05/82, dated 18.03.1982 stating that some portion of the ground floor of the building on the front side was required for the purpose of road widening and the Corporation has agreed for payment of compensation and accordingly, the first respondent acquired an area of 6’ x 40’ in front of the ground floor by demolishing the compound wall, but no compensation has been paid. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24908 of 1997 which was disposed of on 01.10.1997 directing the respondents therein that any portion of the premises is required for the public purpose, they should follow the due process of law. Thereafter, having acquired 240 square feet, no compensation has been paid. The respondents again issued the impugned letters dated 27.06.2000 requesting the petitioner to hand over the possession of an extent of 31.69 square yards and 86.66 square yards situated at Panjagutta road for the purpose of widening of the road and the petitioner questions the said impugned letters. It is stated that the petitioner filed explanation to the impugned notices on 22.07.2000 to the authority concerned, but no final orders have been passed so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that widening of the road is no doubt for the public purpose, but without following due process of law, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from his land. As the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notices, has not been considered and disposed of, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 22.07.2000 filed by the petitioner on 24.07.2000, if not already disposed of. Till the said representation is considered and disposed of and unless the compensation is paid in accordance with law, the property of the petitioner cannot be demolished and he cannot be dispossessed from the said premises without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:27.03.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}