IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 4846 of 2008 Between: Azizunnisa Begum, W/o. Mohd. Anwar, R/o. 16-5-398/3, Boodh Ali Shah Khidki, Azampura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; a) by declaring the action of the Respondents in constructing a road on the petitioner's property No. 16-5-398/11, admeasuring 100 sq.yards in survey No. 107 and 108, situated at Boodh Ali Shah Khidki, Azampura Hyderabad without acquiring the same under Land Acquisition proceedings as illegal and unconstitutional b) to direct the respondents not to construct the road on the petitioner's property No. 16-5-398/101, admeasuring 100 sq.yards in Survey No. 107 and 108, situated at Boodh Ali Shah Khidki, Azampura, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Waim Ahmed Khan Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote Counsel for Respondent No.2 : GP for Revenue The Court made the following : O R D E R: In [aphc1]this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has been seeking to acquire [aphc2]land for the purpose of laying or widening the road existing, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the respondent-Corporation has been offering meager amounts as compensation for the land sought to be taken possession of by them. It is further asserted that the value offered by the Corporation is, in fact, less than the value prevailing for the land as also the value fixed by the revenue establishment of the State Government and, hence, the petitioner is not interested in agreeing to receive the compensation offered by the respondent-Corporation and deliver possession of the land. It is needless to observe that the Municipal Corporation cannot take possession of the property owned by the citizens without recourse to law. The respondents are, therefore, directed to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and acquire the land in question and without adopting such a procedure it should not insist upon the petitioner to part with the possession of the land. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [aphc1] [aphc2]