IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.85 OF 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28.12.2001 in W.P.NO.26598 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M/s City Emporium(Stainless Steel Shop) Rep. by Proprietor, Sri Vasudev K.Rawlyani, 3-4-423/2&3, Narayanguda Hyderabad. 2 M/s Book Links Corporation Rep. by Proprietor, Sri K.B.Satyanarayana, 3-4-423/5&6, Narayanguda Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner(Planning) The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle No.3, Abids Hyderabad. 3 Kasupu shiv Kumar S/o. Kasupu Vasudev, R/o.H.No. 3-4-424, Narayanguda Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.85 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellants are the unsuccessful writ petitioners. In this appeal, the challenge is against the order dated 28.12.2001 dismissing Writ Petition No.26598 of 2001 filed by the appellants, wherein, they sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to deprive their possession from the premises bearing Nos.3-4- 423/2 & 3 and 3-4-423/5 & 6 situated at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, by demolishing the same. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners-appellants herein contended that the entire action was neither without any basis nor following due procedure. After considering the submissions made, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself in view of the liberty sought on behalf of the appellants- petitioners to avail the remedies available under the law. In this appeal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents to show as to how and on what basis, action has been taken, nor any notice has been pressed into service. In view of the same, it is needless to observe that without taking recourse of the procedure under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents has no jurisdiction to take any such action, apart from the fact that such action would be violative of natural justice. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, directing the respondents to take action only by following due process of law in the event they acquire the property. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 3rd July 2009 RRB