THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19756 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in coming to the land of the petitioner on 20.09.2006 and compelling her to surrender her property bearing premises No.21-5-14 situated opposite to the City College, Hyderabad, along with original documents, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the joint owner along with her sons in respect of the abovementioned premises, which was originally ancestral property, by virtue of registered release deed dated 25.04.1995. While so, the first respondent issued a notice dated 03.04.1999 stating that the premises will be affected in road widening on both sides of Musi river; that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) would pay the structural value and additional benefits as per the Rules, if the land is surrendered free of cost. The same was not accepted by the petitioner since the price of the valuable land was not being paid, and that, if surrenders the land in question, she will be left with no other land. After lapse of seven years, all of a sudden, on 20.09.2006 the first respondent came to the premises of the petitioner along with bulldozing apparatus and asked the petitioner and her family members to vacate the premises by 22.09.2006 and also threatened that if the premises was not vacated, it would be pulled down and they would be thrown on the street. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent is threatening demolition of her premises without acquiring the land as per law and without paying any compensation. The first respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the land in question being the temple land, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, but she is entitled to structural value of the land. It is relevant to extract paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as under: “….it is false to state that this corporation has threatened to demolish. It is submitted in fact the petitioner has visited the respondent’s office number of times and thereafter this respondent has requested to surrender the affected portion and also prepared a cheque bearing No.590449 dated 28.08.2006 for an amount of Rs.40,104/- in favour Smt. Yasodha Bai. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent along with M.R.O. Bahudurpura visited the premises on 29.09.2006 and requested the petitioner to hand over the affected portion for road widening purpose and on the same day i.e., 29.09.2006, the sons of the petitioner have given an undertaking that the said premises will be vacated voluntarily by 03.10.2006 and further authorised the respondent authorities to demolish the said structure. As sons of petitioner who are in possession of the property failed to vacate the premises, the respondent has initiated action on and demolished the affected portion for road widening by virtue of the aforesaid undertaking. There are no grounds made out by the warranting issuance of writ as prayed for.” From the counter averments, it is clear that basing on the undertaking given by the sons of the petitioner to vacate the premises, the first respondent has initiated action and demolished the same for road widening purpose. Therefore, the action of the first respondent cannot be faulted. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to take the cheque for Rs.40,104/- as prepared by the first respondent. The learned standing counsel for MCH appearing for the respondents is directed to handover the cheque to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was done. In the circumstances, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 09th July, 2010 GHN